#and also what you're NOT studying is really liberating actually

[quatregats]

Also wow crazy how having a class in which I am finally being forced to sit down and figure out my research is making me 200% more normal and wanting to do said research

[luckybyler]

This was a reply to someone else, but I'm making this its own post because so many people are being so evil right now re: Noah Schnapp.

You can find other, longer explanations with history and all, but all the places I've seen more or less agree with this:

So you're all calling people to cancel Noah because he's in favor of a Jewish nation in what is today Israel. Which is a perfectly reasonable, decent and educated opinion to have, especially when you, to use a trendy term, "educate yourself" and find out why the state of Israel was created.

11000 dead Palestinians, half of them children

According to Hamas. Don't forget that, ever. They're the current, official government of Gaza, thus they're the ones who give numbers. This means that the real number could be 10, 1 million, anything in between. What I've read is that they probably give more of less accurate total numbers. What they fail to do, however, is distinguish between Hamas militants and civilians, and beteween civilians killed by IDF strikes, civilians killed by failed Hamas or Palestininan Islamic Jihad's rockets (which happens a lot), and Palestinians murdered by Hamas/PIJ (which also happens, a whole damn lot). They also don't specify how many civilians they have prevented or tried to prevent from evacuating or receiving aid.

11k dead people is a horrible number. Even 1 dead person is a horrible number. However, urban warfare in such a densely populated area is its own kind of hell, especially when the other side is fond of using civilians as human shields in every way possible. The fact that the number is 11k and not 50k, 100k, and so on, indicates that the IDF have indeed done a lot to minimize deaths. You don't genocide people by doing roof knocks, opening evacuation lines, dropping guided bombs, putting up an Iron Dome to deal with rockets while avoiding escalation, etc. simply because actual genocide, while a lot worse, is also cheaper, easier and faster than what they're doing. This is important because caling every act of war genocide dilutes the word, and there are actual genocides happening around the world. Also, there is a difference between striking military targets and causing civilian deaths as a side effect (what the IDF is doing) and planning and carrying out a massacre deliberately targeting civilians and inflicting as much pain and humilliation as possible on them. And there is a difference between doing so by breaking a ceasefire (which is what Hamas did), and defending your country because if you don't do that a terrorist group will anhilate you (which is what the IDF is doing).

Back to Noah. So far, these are the things that people have tried to cancel him for:

Traveling to Israel (a completely normal thing)

Having Israeli friends (another completely normal thing)

Condemning Hamas' horrible attack on October 7th (the decent thing to do)

Posting a statement saying he feels unsafe as a Jewish person in the US (which, given the rise of antisemitic acts in the world, including the US, including where he lives and where he studies, is a valid feeling to have)

Signing a letter, along with Shawn Levy, Brett Gelman, Ross Duffer and I think Cara Buono, asking Biden to press for the liberation of every hostage by Hamas. This especially shows the utter ignorance of the cancellers because, as it turns out, caring about every hostage implies a slowdown of IDF's actions (and, at the time, a delay of a ground invasion).

Supporting the existence and preservation of the state of Israel (once again, a completely normal thing). The fact that people are turning against him for these things says to me that the real reason you are all hating Noah is beacuse:

He's Jewish. Like, really really Jewish.

And the fact that this all comes from a place of antisemitism isn't hidden at all: I've seen y'all on here, on Twitter, Reddit, every other social media calling him slurs (such as "cunt"), censoring his name, pretending he's not part of the cast, asking the Duffers/Netflix to fire him, wishing him failure, doxxing him, calling on his classmates to physically assault him, etc. He doesn't need to educate himself: you guys are already teaching him a great lesson on why a Jewish state is necessary. If that's the treament he gets from his own "fans", what can he expect from the world at large?

[fatliberation]

I totally understand and can empathize with fat activists when it comes to medical fatphobia. But I do think its important to provide nuance to this topic.

A lot of doctors mention weight loss, particularly for elective surgeries, because it makes the recovery process easier (Particularly with keeping sutures in place) and anesthetic safer.

I feel like its still important to mention those things when advocating for fat folks. Safety is important.

What you're talking about is actually a different topic altogether - the previous ask was not about preparing for surgery, it was about dieting being the only treatment option for anon's chronic pain, which was exacerbating their ed symptoms. Diets have been proven over and over again to be unsustainable (and are the leading predictor of eating disorders). So yeah, I felt that it was an inappropriate prescription informed more by bias than actual data.

(And side note: This study on chronic pain and obesity concluded that weight change was not associated with changes of pain intensity.)

If you want to discuss the risk factor for surgery, sure, I think that's an important thing to know - however, most fat people already know this and are informed by their doctors and surgeons of what the risks are beforehand, so I'm not really concerned about people being uninformed about it.

I'm a fat liberation activist, and what I'm concerned about is bias. I'm concerned that there are so many BMI cutoffs in essential surgeries for fat patients, when weight loss is hardly feasible, that creates a barrier to care that disproportionately affects marginalized people with intersecting identities.

It's also important to know that we have very little data around the outcomes of surgery for fat folks that isn't bariatric weight loss surgery.

A new systematic review by researchers in Sydney, Australia, published in the journal Clinical Obesity, suggests that weight loss diets before elective surgery are ineffective in reducing postoperative complications.

CADTH Health Technology Review Body Mass Index as a Measure of Obesity and Cut-Off for Surgical Eligibility made a similar conclusion:

Most studies either found discrepancies between BMI and other measurements or concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support BMI cut-offs for surgical eligibility. The sources explicitly reporting ethical issues related to the use of BMI as a measure of obesity or cut-off for surgical eligibility described concerns around stigma, bias (particularly for racialized peoples), and the potential to create or exacerbate disparities in health care access.

Nicholas Giori MD, PhD Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Stanford University, a respected leader in TKA and THA shared his thoughts in Elective Surgery in Adult Patients with Excess Weight: Can Preoperative Dietary Interventions Improve Surgical Outcomes? A Systematic Review:

“Obesity is not reversible for most patients. Outpatient weight reduction programs average only 8% body weight loss [1, 10, 29]. Eight percent of patients denied surgery for high BMI eventually reach the BMI cutoff and have total joint arthroplasty [28]. Without a reliable pathway for weight loss, we shouldn’t categorically withhold an operation that improves pain and function for patients in all BMI classes [3, 14, 16] to avoid a risk that is comparable to other risks we routinely accept.

It is not clear that weight reduction prior to surgery reduces risk. Most studies on this topic involve dramatic weight loss from bariatric surgery and have had mixed results [13, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27]. Moderate non-surgical weight loss has thus-far not been shown to affect risk [12]. Though hard BMI cutoffs are well-intended, currently-used BMI cutoffs nearly have the effect of arbitrarily rationing care without medical justification. This is because BMI does not strongly predict complications. It is troubling that the effects are actually not arbitrary, but disproportionately affect minorities, women and patients in low socioeconomic classes. I believe that the decision to proceed with surgery should be based on traditional shared-decision making between the patient and surgeon. Different patients and different surgeons have different tolerances to risk and reward. Giving patients and surgeons freedom to determine the balance that is right for them is, in my opinion, the right way to proceed.”

I agree with Dr. Giori on this. And I absolutely do not judge anyone who chooses to lose weight prior to a surgery. It's upsetting that it is the only option right now for things like safe anesthesia. Unfortunately, patients with a history of disordered eating (which is a significant percentage of fat people!) are left out of the conversation. There is certainly risk involved in either option and it sucks. I am always open to nuanced discussion, and the one thing I remain firm in is that weight loss is not the answer long-term. We should be looking for other solutions in treating fat patients and studying how to make surgery safer. A lot of this could be solved with more comprehensive training and new medical developments instead of continuously trying to make fat people less fat.

[johnnylandslide]

Tataru Week Day 2 - New Job

This was a considerable distance outside Tataru's comfort zone, but she was keeping an open mind.

"Now, take hold of the brush like this," Beruru said, guiding Tataru's arm to the proper posture. "And now hold the palette back here. It's just a conduit for aetherhues, so you don't have to worry about it getting actual paint on your clothes!"

Tataru carefully followed her daughter's instructions. This was different than her first Arcanima lesson in every conceivable way; they'd hopped right into a practical test immediately instead of studying formulae first, the entire discipline seemed to be more about feeling than arithmetic, and her teacher was actually shorter than her as opposed to Thubyrgeim towering four fulms higher.

Given that her brief attempt to become an Arcanist had not gone that well, Tataru supposed that maybe with so many of the factors reversed learning Pictomancy may actually yield better results. However, she was also prepared for the possibility that half of the factors were in her favor, half against, and that with all of them inverted she didn't stand any better a chance now then she had back then.

Beruru was adamant about her trying anyway though, and that was enough to convince her. Pictomancy was her daughter's greatest passion, and that made it a de facto interest of Tataru's as well.

"You're certain this doesn't require any artistic skill?" Tataru asked.

"Absolutely! Dad only started painting after he'd learned Pictomancy. It's not actually about painting the specific shapes with the brush, but using the brush to channel your imagination!"

"I'm not really sure I have an imagination like yours," Tataru said. It was difficult to compare herself to Beruru, the girl from whom visions of moogles, chocobos, and all manner of other creatures would spring forth fully-formed. Tataru shook off her apprehension though; she needed to give this her all. "I'll do my best, though!"

Beruru took her hands and guided them again, a giddy smile on her face. Tataru let herself be led along, and focused on her daughter's lesson.

"Now to do a motif, you just need to think of something to paint," Beruru said. "I like to paint moogles, so I usually start with a pom. It can be anything, though!"

The fact it could be anything was what was tripping Tataru up, actually. With Arcanima, each task she'd been asked to complete had only a single solution, and required merely some quick arithmetic and carefully channeling of aether. With Pictomancy, there were no clear answers.

"What should I try to paint? I'm not much of an artist..." Tataru said.

"You absolutely are!" Beruru protested. "All of the clothing you design? Those fancy dresses? It doesn't have to be paint to be art!"

Tataru pondered Beruru's words. Because of the paintbrush she was holding, she'd been thinking of Pictomancy as only about art in the very traditional sense, but if Tataru's own crafts counted, then maybe she was more creative than she had thought.

"Okay, hmmm..." Tataru said, tightening her grip on the brush. Beruru looked at her in excitement as she began her attempt to paint a motif. Tataru focused on the image of a dress concept she'd thought of a while ago, and did her best to reach for the aether stored within her.

Channeling aether was just as difficult as it was every other time, but it did feel liberating to just send the gathered magical power into the brush without having to pay mind to spell formulae or aetherflow. When she felt the aether in the brush reaching a limit, she swished it through the air with Beruru's guidance, and heard a pop and saw a flash of light.

"Mom, you did it! Look!" Beruru cried, stepping back and pointing down at Tataru's chest.

The dress had taken shimmering form, projecting itself over Tataru's usual coat like some form of glamour. The spell wasn't perfect; the needlework in some areas of the illusory outfit was exactly how Tataru would expect, but in some other areas it was nonsensical and would not properly hold the garment together if it were real.

There were also several patches where Tataru could see straight through, the glamour failing to cover up her physical clothing. They began to multiply as she noticed them, and then without giving her a chance to react the aetherhue dress had winked out of existence.

Tataru had a smile on her face to match Beruru's now. Not only was the feeling of using magic again after so many years exhilarating, Pictomancy was useful. Being able to directly project her ideas into the real world was going to be an amazing tool if she could get better at it.

A second later, she'd been tackled into a hug by her daughter, and her thoughts about the practical uses of this new job went off by the wayside. This was benefit number one.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

My (non-Jewish) anthropology professor made a really incorrect statement about the idea of Jews as “God’s chosen people”. When I (also non-Jewish but try to keep informed) corrected him, he brought up something else that sounded wrong to me: supposedly only Reform Judaism allows for conversion? I didn’t know enough to contest it at the time, but that really does not sound true to my ear, from the way I’ve heard Jewish people talk about it. Is there any truth to that?

Yeah, the Chosen People thing is often wildly and antisemitically misinterpreted to mean "We think we're G-d's Specialest Selected Elite People and the only people G-d actually loves and cares about" -- which like. Could not be further from the truth. What it actually means is: We were selected to do the project of the mitzvot of the Torah, which is a lot of extra homework that other people don't need to do but someone needs to do it. It's a lot more like "chosen to do the dishes" of the spiritual world than "chosen to be special." Now. Is there definitely some pride of place in doing the extra work? Sure! But at the same time, Jewish eschatology has always made room for non-Jews. We absolutely think non-Jews who live good lives and are decent, moral people have a solid place in the world to come. We aren't angling for a everyone to become Jewish because, kind of by definition, not everyone needs to do the ritual mitzvot. Live ethical lives and be decent to each other and us? Sure. Lay tefillin and daven three times a day and (during the Temple times) offer sacrifices and wave lulav fronds during Sukkot and eat matzah on Pesach and keep kosher and keep Shabbat? Etc.? Nope, that's our task and ours alone.

Now! If you feel personally called to living a life of Torah and believe that you have a Jewish soul and should be made part of Am Yisrael, the Jewish people, you can go through the lengthy process of conversion and (essentially) become a member of the Tribe? Yeah, you can do that. You better be real sure and go into it eyes open. You're going to need to be persistent and dedicated to studying and being present in the community. It's not encouraged, and traditionally rabbis would turn someone asking to convert away three times before accepting them as a student to make sure they were serious. In modern times, most rabbis are a bit more welcoming, but will still push you to seriously consider why you want to be Jewish. If the answer is still yes for you, then you can do it, if you must. Most gerim (converts) describe an experience very similar to how transgender folks describe our gender journeys - we can't be any other way, and wouldn't want to be. I'm both a convert and trans, and my sense of understanding myself as both non-binary and as a Jew are deeply held and equally compelling.

All branches of rabbinic Judaism accept converts. Some have a more strenuous process than others, and some take on very few converts. The more traditional the movement, the more likely it is that the person will be encouraged to explore other options. The reason for this is that the more traditional the movement, the more serious they take the binding nature of the commandments, and therefore adding another Jew (especially one who has so much to learn in a comparatively short time rather than being raised in it) is a risk that the person will revert back to their old ways or find something else later. Since we are judged collectively (Torah is a group project) and the future world to come hinges on us scrupulously observing the mitzvot (according to the more traditional movements) it is imperative that any late additions to the People be very serious and rigorous in their observance.

The liberal movements are a lot less intense about that, although it's also a spectrum. The Reform movement does not hold the ritual mitzvot to be binding, only the ethical mitzvot. They therefore lack the same incentive to avoid failed conversions. The Conservative/Masorti movement and some of the other traditional egalitarian communities do hold the mitzvot as binding, but are a lot more flexible about their expectations that everyone follow them. It's a lot more of a "do your best; we're here to support you" vibe. (That's my branch that I converted through.)

Each branch, to be clear, has their strengths and weaknesses, their merits and their drawbacks. Every Jew brings something to the table. The Reform movement (and similarly liberal smaller movements) are probably the most welcoming to gerim and have the fewest hoops to jump through, but every branch has a process and some amount of converts. Those that choose a more traditional movement typically support, respect, and value the extra hoops of the traditional movements and are willing to work within that system; at least that's how it was for me. I wanted it to be rigorous so that I was prepared and certain; I got that out of my giyur process. Other people have different needs and value systems that are equally valid.

[kkoffin]

LOL that poll is so interesting because you think loving women and hating men are separate somehow.

Nobody hates women more than people that love men. Bihet men love women: Are they feminists too? Enabling bad behaviour in fauxminists is bad feminism. This isn’t a group therapy club, it’s a liberation movement.

I assume all of these are you. Idk if you are young or somewhat ill and that's why you are obsessing over me and getting so mad, but either way I'm somewhat sorry for you. It's been over an HOUR you've spent sending me anons.

You can argue that you can't love women without hating men, since men hurt women. sure. but the point of the poll, and my concern with radblr is that yall ONLY hate men. You don't suddenly love women and want to help women just because you hate men. If you don't want to help women, you aren't a feminist.

I was asking: what comes first, what motivates you, a hated for men or a love for women? I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive. If you can't figure it out then have a look at your actions. Are your actions helpful to women? if not, you are not doing feminist action.

I can really tell how much you love women and how much you want to help women by how you're wasting literal hours spamming me because I made you mad by making you address your own actions, rather than idk. spending time actually helping women. volunteering, donating, learning, being otherwise supportive etc. As I said in the post, literally all the post is attacking is "feminists" who do nothing to help women. I don't care if you hate men. I do too. But helping women is what makes you a feminist. If you aren't doing that then I'm not the "fauxminist" here. I literally dedicate as much of my life as possible to helping women, studying the causes for women's issues, donating etc. You seem to dedicate your time to attacking other women, I imagine you may also be the type to call women "dick addicted" "cum breath" etc, based on how you feel so personally attacked.

Just because you hate men doesn't mean you are a feminist. If you also hate women, or attack them as you seem to, then you are not a feminist. You just hate men. That's not an accomplishment, and it doesn't grant you a title like "feminist". Feminism is not an identity or a fun label, it's a verb. The action is helping women, and supporting their liberation. Not spending hours of your time spamming them with angry anons. It's also not exclusively attacking men. You aren't going to achieve women's liberation by hoping literally every single man commits suicide because you were mean to them on tumblr. Get off ur couch and DO SOMETHING to ACTUALLY help. Stop letting your anger and hatred control you into wasting ur fucking time.

[thewardenisonthecase]

this is just rambling about brazil because the conversation rn about the liberalism in DA and the change = good/tradition = bad is remiding me of some stuff.

so, in latam, whenever we are criticizing portugal and spain for all they've done to us , we're often hit with the "but its been 500 years. you guys need to move on from that. if you're poor nowadays, its your fault, not ours". And this is something that I myself had to hear from a spaniard, its something I have seen portuguese people say a lot.

And what they don't get is that, it does not matter that "its been 500 years" because we still suffer because of colonization. We can't "move on" from it when so many of us are still affected by it. Hell, Brazil has a very complicated racism issue that is kinda very unique to our country and its in everyday life and its because of colonization. We are a "developing nation" because we were heavily explored and our natural resources were taken from us. The reason why to this day latam is upset with our colonizers is because we never had a chance to grow on our own - our lands were invaded by the europeans and then in the 60's, the USA helped install many right-wing dictatorships that deeply fucked up our countries. How are we eve supposed to "move on" when our colonizers call us monkey to this day, refuse to acknowdlegd any wrong doing and have thrived under our suffering?

And it gets into a cultural problem. I have a degree in performing arts and one thing we studied was history of theater in brazil. the first thing the teacher talked about how colonization fucked things. Because theater stems from religious practices, and all accounts show that pre-colonization Indegenous people in Brazil had practices that resemble theater and that, if given the space to grow, would have become that. But then the portuguese came and with both the genocide and forced catholicism, these practices have been almost lost to time. Yes, there are groups that these traditions have survived to this day, but a lot has been lost. I won't remember what period it was, but there was a movement in brazil, in regards to theater, that was about a "true brazilian theater". Because at the time our theater was heavily based on europe and this is something that goes into other aspects of art and culture which is what is truly ours? in the sense of, because of colonization, a lot of things from our culture stems from portugal and other european nations. we can't really claim Indegenous beliefs and practices as ours, especially when Indegenous people are still being hurt (just to explain this better, a lot of what is considered "brazilian folklore" are actually religious beliefs from Indigenous people who had expressed that they do not like these beliefs to be called "folklore" because its not. and then the other things that could be considered "brazilian folklore" stem from fucking catholicism, which means it came from portugal). Our culture is a mix of cultures that belong to so many other people, but nothing is truly ours. And i guess you could say that through that mix we make our own thing, and there is a beauty in that but it also. just kinda sucks that it feels that theres not much that is truly, 100% ours. that its always 'oh this was taken from this other culture and then we did our own thing' and its a topic that is always on my mind and it kinda gets on the topic of decolinization, and if im not mistaken, when that exploration phase was exploring what could have been if the portuguese hadn't invaded but anyways im deviating from the topic (and btw i do love our culture ok, im just getting a little philosophical or whatever).

Anyways what I mean to say is. you cant expect people to move on and let go of the past when the past is like, all we can cling on to to remind us of who we are. or who we were to be. In fact, we cant let go of the past because if we do, we're allowing ourselves to forget the wrongs we suffered and commit them again. In recent years, the right wing has been trying to do a historical revisionism of the dictatorship and claiming that "it wasnt so bad" "it was good for brazil, we made progress" (the dictatorship was literally one of the WORST period for the economy in brazil but please do tell me how it was so much better). This is why 'im still here" 's victory at the oscars is so important to us because that movie is about no, im not letting go of what has happened. There is a scene in the movie where the main character is asked "with the return of democracy, don't you think that the govnerment has more pressing matters than trying to remedy/right/heal (idk whats the best word) the past?" to which the main character says no. remeding the past IS a pressing issue the govnerment needed to do (and still has to do. so much of the dictatorship still needs to be remedied. so many people are still lost and we never knew their fate but alas).

tldr: you cant expect people to move on from the past when that past is an open wound that still bleeds.

[chanaleah]

hi! i came across your blog and wanted to ask a question, because everyone I know irl is pro-palestine and I don't want to have a position until I can see both sides clearly.

my question is, how do zionists view the images you see circulating online of the current destruction and death in Palestine? recently I saw a fairly disturbing photo of what looked like hundreds of bodies, and I want to know how Zionist people feel about images like these, or even the videos from press currently in Palestine.

but then of course I know there are hostages being held from Israel, but how do you feel that compares when you see the state of the current war?

im trying to phrase this as neutral as possible, I promise! it's very hard to stay away from overt propaganda (from either side) on the internet, and I'd just like to be informed before I support one thing or the other.

thank you in advance!

Thanks for the question! It seems to me you're trying to ask in good faith, so I will answer in good faith.

Firstly, "Zionist" isn't quite the word for this question as that category is just too broad. So I'm going to answer from my point of view as a liberal/progressive (by US standards) Zionist.

So, to put it in simple terms, I feel really sad. Even though I don't necessarily trust the photos I see, I still know that there are people in Gaza that are suffering terribly and that's awful.

However, I think what likely differentiates me from the people you know is that I most blame Hamas for the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. For example, Hamas and Hezbollah have been sending rockets to Israel daily since October 7th, but not very many Israelis have died. The reason for this is the Iron Dome and bomb shelters, both infrastructure the Israeli government has built to keep its civilians safe.

In Gaza, there are no bomb shelters, and even though there are between 350-450 miles of tunnels, civilians are not allowed to use them for shelter.

I also blame Hamas for the fact that aid is not reaching Gazans. Recently, a study which I will link here found that the amount of aid going into Gaza is more than enough for the entire population to be fed. So clearly the problem is distribution, not the amount of aid actually going in. Hamas has also said in regards to the Aid Pier the US built that they will kill/maim Gazans who attempt to get aid.

All war is awful, and this war is no different. This war isn't exceptionally bad, even though it's made out to be. Personally, I do support the war coming to an end, ideally not through a ceasefire but through a treaty or an accord or something like that. I don't think Israel should control Gaza, as that would be a step backwards in the peace process, but I also don't think Hamas should control Gaza.

I hope this helped! Remember, you should always do your own research on any claims you see! And if you have any more questions, please reach out again! 💜

[donnerpartyofone]

I don't know if I can completely articulate this so I'm kind of just piecing this together as I go, but it feels like a major component of right-leaning social attitudes is just contrarianism. I notice this whenever a popular musician becomes controversial for whatever reason--bigotry, stupidity, or maybe they just turned out to be a dick--and suddenly that artist enjoys a fresh burst of interest within the kinda rationalist, Nietzschean, libertarian-flavored neighborhoods of tumblr. I have an old friend (and actual old person) who really enjoys the performance of being a right wing asshole, even though if you get to know him he's really pretty liberal in most ways; he was an old time New Yorker and never had a nice thought about Trump, actually he was mortified when Trump became the republican candidate, but once he realized how much Trump pissed everyone off then suddenly that was his guy. He also tried to convince me that Halliburton was secretly this super responsible environmental protector, I couldn't possibly repeat what his justification was--and he really had no personal investment in environmentalism or the war in Iraq or anything, he just wanted me to feel like Halliburton was the victim of pinko lefty ignorance and that anyone who doesn't like Dick Cheney is just being a pretentious stick in the mud. I was reminded of this exchange during my brief experiment with following a bunch of tumblr people from the opposite side of the sociopolitical tracks, which more or less ended with a guy asserting that plastic pollution doesn't do any real environmental or biological damage and all the concern about it is just a typical liberal scam. And it's both true that the effects of e.g. microplastics aren't that well understood AND that recent studies have linked them to liver stress, cardiac events, and a bunch of other bad stuff...but setting that aside, I don't think it makes you a stupid hippie if you feel concerned about a relatively new phenomenon involving a continuous buildup of inorganic and essentially permanent material inside your organs. Even if you don't understand what the risks are now, I don't think it's dumb to wonder about them.

I don't know how I want to summarize this, I guess it's like a combination of a) the pleasure of pissing people off in general and b) being averse to any line of thinking that involves ethical cautions and self-control. And I mean, some amount of tire-kicking is good. It's good to have to check yourself, to notice if you're making a reasoned judgment or if you're just having a habitual emotional reaction. I think contrarians can serve a real social purpose in that dimension. But there also seems to be this urge to contradict just the basic idea that you should ever have to exercise some discipline or forego your own pleasure in the service of something more important. I think that's the fundamental thing a lot of these guys are responding to. I hear them make this diagnosis sometimes that boils down to "Don't listen to the lefties, they just want life to be hard for no reason," and that just sounds really desperate to me.

[jewishconvertthings]

Hello,

I’m considering converting and have been for a long time, but I’m not sure whether to go with a reform rabbi or a conservative rabbi for the conversion. Reform Judaism is probably what I would practice after converting, but I also know that reform conversions are not recognized by some other rabbis and branches of Judaism. I want to be able to travel to different places and visit different communities and still be considered a Jew. But, I’m wondering how much this would actually be affected by me converting with a reform rabbi instead of a conservative rabbi. Am I actually going to be asked what branch I converted with? Am I ever going to have to “prove” that I’m really Jewish? Or will most people and communities just accept that I am if I say I am?

Hi anon,

So I'm not sure how this applies out abroad, but assuming you're in the US, many/most liberal movements will accept each other's conversions. You may occasionally come across a Conservative shul that is more stringent about you needing to have had kabbalat mitzvot as part of your conversion, along with all of the other traditional steps. Most Reform rabbis strongly encourage (but some do not require) you to have a brit milah or hatafat dam brit (if relevant to your anatomy) and/or tevilah (immersion in the mikvah.) All rabbis require a significant period of structured study; that may be a reading list for self study or it may be a Judaism 101 class. All rabbis are going to want you to spend significant time within the community to experience the holidays, Shabbat, the people, and the culture to make sure this is your forever home first. You will then need to have a beit din to finalize the process when you and your rabbi both think you are ready.

If you are wanting your conversion to be accepted by the widest swath of liberal Jews, you should make sure that you complete all the above-mentioned steps, including mikvah and (if relevant) having a bris (whether that's a hatafat dam brit or brit milah.) The Conservative movement requires all of these steps, and also requires that you accept responsibility for all of the mitzvot and the binding nature of halacha (kabbalat mitzvot.) The Reform movement doesn't include this part because it fundamentally doesn't view halacha as binding. While many Conservative communities/rabbis will overlook this last one in general, they may become more strict if you are, say, trying to become a long-term Conservative Jew and/or a member of the shul. (I will say, though, that the Conservative movement doesn't require its affiliated shuls to require that all voting members are halachicly Jewish to community standards. This was a way to include more Jewish adjacent or Jewish but not halachicly Jewish members of the community. So it honestly probably wouldn't even get brought up in that situation either.) If you are trying to get married by a Conservative rabbi, you may run into trouble without briefly redoing the beit din to include kabbalat mitzvot, but I think that's probably the most likely scenario in which this information would be chased down including a paper trail and phone call to your conversion rabbi. Otherwise I seriously doubt it would come up.

As for just rolling through a minyan in your travels (post-conversion)? Literally just tell them you're Jewish, because you are. You don't owe anyone an elaboration unless the rabbi or gabbaim ask, and that's honestly unlikely. No one else is halachicly allowed to ask you about your conversion anyway.

I strongly recommend converting within the community that fits your view of Judaism and needs best, and not worrying about other people validating your conversion. As someone who is more traditional spectrum and does view halacha as binding, I take very seriously the idea of accepting the mitzvot upon yourself as a binding matter. If that's not you, don't make promises you don't intend to keep based on what a handful of judgemental people might think. They really don't matter and they shouldn't get to make major life decisions like "what kind of Jew am I?" for you. The rest of us? Honestly we're just glad if you show up at 7 a.m. to be Jew #10.

[liquid-bonhomme]

I'd almost agree with you Lorch . . .

Almost.

I know you didn't actually make it through Social Studies class, so, allow me to help you out a bit here.

The identity politics bullshit you are hyper focused here? That's redhoric. It's bullshit designed to distract people. Not only is it an import from American politics (the version you see of it in Canada,) it's RECENT to Canadian right-wing politics. Mainstream right-wing politics, anyway.

2000s Canadian politics where closer to American politics in the 1910s to 30s-ish. In that, it was mostly focused around economics. Unlike America, social liberalism has been kinda a given for . . . Ever. That is to say, equality, not equity, was a given. Now, there have been many very damning holes in that equality, and even as those holes were "fixed," the liberalist approach is always going to leave people behind being dragged in the mud. Canada might have started vaguely more equal than America did, but. The longer those gaps in equity are allowed to fester, thr bigger they become regardless.

The Conservatives have traditionally (as in VERY MUCH NOT AT THE MOMENT WHY HAVE YOU NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THIS YET) been for equality absolutism.

The NDP has been for an equity absolutism. (Or, at least they say. We're far enough away from true equity that . . . Like, who knows of they'd make good on that given the chance. I want to hope that they would, but. You know.)

The Liberal Party has been for some sort of mix of the two. Which side they lean closer to depends.

That distinction between economic equality and economic equity is kinda the thing that actually matters here though. It's hard to keep that in perspective when the Conservatives are threatening to deport your black dog, beat up your gay husband and kill your trans child. That's why it's such an effective tool for American Republicans to use. Both to stir up fear in your poor grandma who doesn't know what's going on, and make life untenable for the disenfranchised. Right-wingers don't need minority votes, typically. They need a large enough portion of the average citizen voting majority.

Republicans in America especially have been more successful at suppressing minority votes by making voting harder for the disenfranchised. If you can't take time off of work, if you're disabled, can't afford child care, can't afford to get your documents updated, or even just can't afford the mental energy of jumping through a bunch of hoops and the general unpleasant user experience of going to vote, etc.

The reason why the Canadian Conservatives used to not really play those games is because, a) more of our population are minorities and b) voter suppression has not really taken hold as effectively here.

Ironically enough, the wacky, stupid way our constitutional documents legally function has, BY SHEER LUCK, made it harder for any political party to gerrymander the vote effectively-- in a way that just so happened to primarily cost the conservatives. The Praries have pretty consistently voted Con since forever-- but we individually have less voting power than Eastern Canada, which typically votes Liberal, or sometimes Bloc in the case of Quebec.

If Canada tomorrow switched to a popular vote system without any kind of voting blocks, the Conservatives would probably lose seats. Potentially, they would never win an election again since even in the most densely populated areas in the Praries tend to vote Liberal or NDP-- but even so.

The American democratic system, much more elegantly crafted . . . Is actually also more vulnerable to exploitation. Somehow. Insane that that's the reality . . . But it is.

Anyway,

point being:

When you move aside the bullshit, if identity politics wasn't such a boon, really . . . The Liberals are pro-capitalist. They will tout virtues of a mixed economy, and they've made good on it at times . . . Even counting the times they were FORCED TO. But frankly, as a leftist, I don't trust a government that can be bought anymore.

I'm not even saying the NDP can't be bought. However, on their current platform, as weak sauce socialist as it is, it's much harder to fucking buy them and have them keep their constituency than it is the Libs.

That's kinda the big important thing here, Lily. Because you can say "oh we love the girls and the gays" all you like. The disenfranchised are more likely to be poor, and without policy towards equity, we're just going to get fucking poorer.

[gowns]

I’m expecting a baby boy and tbh have never given any thought to what it would be like to be the mother of a boy (having spent a LOT of time thinking about raising a girl in contrast to how I was raised). As someone who has good observations of both little kid society and of gender, what have you observed about little boy kids today?

my general observation is that even in this liberal area where many parents do an attempt* at gender neutrality, the girls and the boys end up cliqueing up according to gender and behavior. by this i mean: the majority of the boys only want to play with other boys, and play rough, roughhouse, do games where they "hunt" each other, play bad guys vs good guys, etc. the girls only want to socialize with other girls, and they do pretend games (either domestic or "fantasy" inspired like fairies and unicorns and princesses, although already at the age of 6 they're moving more into girl power superheroes), or sometimes just straight up circling up and gabbing with each other.

*i do think that since most of these parents are like, liberal liberal, the attempts are quite half-hearted.

i remember it being kind of like that when i was a kid too, except i didn't like either way of playing, and i would usually be off by myself doing my own little thing. when i got older i was kind of a "social butterfly," in that i liked flitting around between groups and had a lot of guy friends and a lot of girl friends, none of them terribly close, but a lot i could reliably "hang out" with and pass the time. i got along best with people who i could joke with or make smart references with.

as an adult i basically do the same thing tbh. i'm always just vibing doing whatever. the difference is i have more choices in who i can contact and spend more time with, and my closest friends are just as weird / gay / leftist / bookish / funny as i am. i find myself alienated by a lot of people, but they're also very very interesting to me, as case studies.

so in other words -- i do feel that there will be inevitably cliques that form around parroting gendered behaviors, but it's not inevitable that your kid will be constrained by that!

--

ANYway. as to what it's like to have a son. i really wouldn't know, personally! i have friends who have boys and it seems like everything will be all right as long as you're kind and gentle and model that for them. let them wear whatever colors they want and teach them how to stick up for themselves and others. then you'll already be miles ahead of the standard boy-parent.

we always said that if we had a boy it would be a bobby hill kind of kid. you know? we are goofy people, so we were always destined to have goofy kids. my kids are very into pink and princesses and fairies (i am actually sitting in their all-pink bedroom writing this), but more than that, they are good at critical thinking, they love to read, they are compassionate and funny and friendly and like to say and do things that weird me out. like showing me chewed up food or turning their eyelids inside out or making monster sounds. that's all good.

it's more important that we allow them to be weird little humans than anything else. and all kids are naturally weird. every human is! just don't let them experience shame about it.

be kooky and your kid will be kooky, trust me on that. and teach them to question everything. they'll inevitably be shaped by social pressures one way or another, but you can help them keep the flame of their individuality alive.

[transmutationisms]

a friend suggested hermeneutics to me as a field of study and a decent number of authors in the field r reliant on psychoanalysis and that was so very confusing for me 😭 i understand tht interfacing with "wrong" schools of thought is important but it's such a wild 180 turn from like..completely disregarding psychiatry in my daily life lmao

well it's more that psychoanalysis is one particular hermeneutical method, right? like there are other very different schools of thought on meaning-making. so you can study hermeneutics or practice exegesis and never touch analysis, is my understanding.

anyway though when i say psychoanalysis is wrong or subjective or whatever i'm generally talking about 1) specific schools of analysis that impute their particular theories / forms / archetypes to a transhistorical, a-social, mythologised human psyche, and 2) the tendency among liberal and other non-materialist commenters to causally impute changes in the world-political context to psychological conditions, rather than the other way around. this is where someone like wilhelm reich becomes really vital imo, although even freud was aware of these issues to some extent (though like not really interested enough to try to theorise outside them lol).

i think plenty of psychoanalytic concepts have applicability in particular contexts, like for example maybe you take a 'complex' that is formulated in observation of, say, bourgeois viennese white women in the early 20th century, and there are often real insights you can generate by interrogating how that complex forms in those people, and why, and again all of the interior analysis here should be subordinated to the analysis of the material conditions: labour relations, the role of the household in capitalist political economy, the production of the roles and positionalities of bourgeois genders, and so forth. all of these things are what produce the 'complex'; not the other way round. psychoanalysis at its best has a capacity to interrogate the dialectics of psychological interiority in context and i actually think this is very much worth doing and would like to see more communists commit to it. it's not a deference to a pre-determined set of rules laid out by freud or anybody else; it's a mode of investigation that i think can be entirely materially oriented, and is more conducive to understanding psychological complexity than most of what passes for 'social sciences' today lmao.

in history you see examples of this happening if you think about the difference between 'psychohistory'---a mode of historical writing that claims to analyse material events as influenced by some individual's or group's decontextualised psychological states---and something like a cultural history that attempts to explain something about an age's psychology as a function of its material conditions and relations of production. think, like, what walter benjamin had going on. and then compare to eg desmond and moore's deeply unserious darwin biography. so i wouldn't say "engaging with psychoanalysis" has any singular degree of rightness or value or whatever---it's a question of how you're engaging, and with what political commitments, and how you see the psyche in relation to its material conditions. all of this is also what i would say about any school of psychology or psychiatry, though there are some that are just hostile to materialist analysis by nature, eg bioessentialisms of all stripes.

[georgegraphys]

Why is George Russell important to Mercedes PR plans in entering the Chinese market? — An opinionated talk by Ari

I'm not going to over speculate/over exaggerate the recent possibility of George promoting Mercedes (car company) in the Chinese market but if that really is the thing behind the whole douyin account thing, then allow me to do this talk about the whole possibility and why he's the right person if everything came true 😌😌

Why is he important? I've said lots of times on twitter (and maybe here i forgot) that George is a very good conversationalist. People use PR63 or PRussell to insult him but I do not think of it as an insult. Not everyone has natural born PR skills like George and if you look at some of the people in the grid? Fucking PR disasters whose image are saved by the work of their PR teams.

A good conversationalist like George can be seen from a) how he speaks b) the people he mingle with. Let's talk about point A. George might sound robotic to people who aren't used to/so fond of hearing PR speech but it is actually great because he answers those things diplomatically, weighing equally on the good and bad, rights and wrongs. Good and bad, rights and wrongs are heavily subjective. It differs from person to person. Having the ability to answer such questions diplomatically is a crazy talent. You might say "oh it's common sense, Ari" lol when you get out there and start working in the HR department/PR department, you'll notice that only 1% had that natural ability to be like George. And talking about speeches, forms of speeches extends beyond what is spoken verbally. Non verbal cues also shine through in this matter as the worst betrayer of a person is themselves and their non verbal cues. George is very good at controlling his non verbal cues. His expression, body language, gestures and much more. He is very good at controlling them (controlling ≠ hiding). He is very open with his body languages but also controls them very well (or it might just be him as an honest and good person tbh 😭) which is why these aspects made him a very good conversationalist.

The second one is the people he mingles with. "Ari he talks with that fraud FIA president and Fl*vi*" Gurl... I'm VERY sad to inform you that when you're in that position, you have 0 choice. It is very easy to be idealistic when you're not in that position but when you're in that position, it is not easy. This is the harsh truth. But aside from that, look at how easily he befriends people outside and inside the sport. From the executives, engineers and staff inside his team, other drivers on the grid, media, fans and more. He mingles with just anyone. And i think that might have to do with him being very good at finding people's hot buttons, being very responsive, a good listener and a good conversationalist. Those things are REAL talents because even me, myself, have not fully established those qualities despite studying these theoretical things myself in educational institutes and from obtaining real life experiences related to that. The people he mingles with shows that he is able to handle any kinds of diversity with such grace and respect. And respect won't happen without someone knowing and acknowledging the boundaries and differences as well as the concept of diversity.

Now we move on to the part of why he is so important to Mercedes PR plans for the chinese market.

Not every part of the world revolves with the european/american progressive mindsets and cultural values. Some parts of the world value the concept of cultural significance and emphasize a lot on respect (could be age/cultures/etc) which may be a bit lacking when compared to the european/american liberal progressive ways. And China is one of the latter countries. China is a very culturally rich country and they are very strong in the concept of respecting others. Those values are a part of the reason for where they are now internationally. They are very very proud of their own culture (as they should!) and living values. They are also a very innovative and creative country that uses every single thing at their disposal to the utmost.

To appeal to a country that is culturally rich and emphasizes heavily on their values and norms, they can't just pull a whole "let's do business" kind of thing. Every company/brand obviously needs someone, no matter if the impact ended up being small or big, to represent them. That representative will then be their ambassador/muse for them to appeal to the general public. And that's where George fits the criteria. A Formula One driver, one of the most followed on instagram (Top 10), having a pretty much solid spotlight on him in the sport, and on top of that, he is a very respectful, open minded, down to earth person who is also a good conversationalist that is REALLY REALLY great at networking.

George is also very strong and dedicated to his PR duties and obligations. He interacts well with his fans and is very good at creating a positive friendly environment and vibes for everyone. He is very good at networking and he knows the boundaries, both for the people he interacts with and the boundaries with Mercedes. He knows very well how to play the game and does everything so diplomatically.

There is a thin line between being diplomatic and being a "teacher's pet", "ass licker", "dick sucker" and others. The thin line is when someone is being diplomatic, they know how to not just please someone but also assert their stance on something politely and these people are not the kind of people that are pushovers. They know very well how to stand up for themselves, tug the necessary strings and others. While the so-called "teacher's pet", "ass licker", "dick sucker", they don't know how to do those things. They don't do it very well and could easily be a manipulative and cunning person. A diplomatic person is able to take advantage of a situation without pulling on some tricks, evil strings, and others. They do it so naturally while also asserting what they want and where they stand. That's what differentiates a diplomatic person and a "teacher's pet", "ass licker", "dick sucker".

So, these are the reasons why, in my opinion, George could make a very great piece to Mercedes PR plans on their chinese ventures. It's not all about marketability, popularity and those numbers you see on social media but what is also important is the individual themselves and how they carry themselves in real life, in front of the public, to the company and everyone else.

[thecurioustale]

A CO₂ World: Honest Background Research in Worldbuilding

One of the most enduring—and fascinating—challenges of writing hard sci-fi is the fact that positing even very simple ideas often requires a great deal of background research, as I am not an expert in any of these fields. And not just any cover-your-ass research: honest research that attempts to portray physical truth.

Suppose a planet with an almost entirely carbon dioxide atmosphere. We actually have those in the Solar System: Venus and Mars. And suppose your spunky, left-handed, silver-haired starship captain is on the surface of such a planet (whose atmosphere is thankfully thicker than Mars' but not as thick as Venus'). Immediately, this raises numerous questions about the environmental description.

If she's not wearing protective gear, how does she breathe? This was the easiest to answer; I knew it would be a distributed nanite-scale system inside her body that liberated O₂ from the CO₂. All I had to do was study the most suitable means of achieving this, which ended up being nanite-scale electrolysis. A miniaturized of the same basic technology used on the Perseverance rover on Mars in its MOXIE instrument, actually. The high heats required are indeed alarming, but with the proper architecture it's not really a big problem to have tiny little nanovessels inside of you that are 1500 degrees. As for where the carbon goes, let's just say it is mostly exhaled and the rest causes blacker poos. (Which I say casually, but both of those claims also required research.) Problem solved, easy peasy lemon squeezy!

The color of the sky was an obvious question, though I didn't think of it till I was writing this, as I've done a lot of sky color research in the past and had kind of bypassed it this time due to starting with the blue color rather than starting with an atmospheric composition. I wanted blue, like Earth, for story reasons, but I was prepared to go where the facts led me if necessary. You're probably aware that the Martian and Venusian skies are not blue, but they also have their own other things going on. The Martian sky for instance is red mainly because of airborne rust dust. What about those blue Martian sunsets, though? That comes from the large size of the dust particles, and the associated light-scattering. So if our hypothetical planet has Earth-normal sizes of dusts in the air, it's not a problem—and since its atmosphere is similar in density to Earth's, this is a reasonable supposition. In any case, a purely carbon dioxide atmosphere doesn't necessarily impose any sky-color requirements. Or, rather, it does, but that requirement actually is blue, unless other things are going in the atmosphere.

There is very much an "unknown unknowns" danger when it comes to amateur research, and I am thankful for my lifetime of generalist curiosity, because it occurred to me yesterday to ask what carbon dioxide gas weighs. This would potentially affect the pitch of Cherry's voice. And, sure enough, pure CO₂ is moderately but noticeably heavier than Earth air, meaning a noticeably deeper voice but hardly that deep. I was quite pleased with myself, and relieved, to have thought of that.

But of course if one feather is plucked for the hat another might end up jabbing you in the butt. As I was going to bed last night, lights out, lying in bed, actively dozing off, it suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't thought about radiation! I knew that this hypothetical planet has a higher level of surface radiation from its parent star than we do and a reduced magnetosphere relative to Earth's. But how would this interact with a nearly-all-CO₂ atmosphere? Would Cherry actually be at risk to get a sunburn? I hadn't considered that until I practically dreamt it.

I remembered the question this morning and set about looking it up. Chemical absorptions of light are an endless minefield because I do not possess the scientific groundwork principles to deduce the answers to these questions. I always have to look them up. And usually I have to look them up with the end-use application in mind, rather than the question itself, due to the difficulty of getting good answers out of Google these days. But even helping Google along in this way is tricky, because unrelated conversations of a more popular nature (say, the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming) tend to dominate search results. This even happens at the human level: I found a Quora page where somebody asked the exact question I had, and several of the answers mistook it for a question about global warming.

Complicating the context of the question is that gases in the low atmosphere don't have the same function in this regard as gases in the high atmosphere. This was offset somewhat by the fact that I only needed to know what was happening on the surface—sunburn or no sunburn—and so it didn't actually matter which level of the atmosphere was blocking what. But finding an answer I could be confident about involved going through some of this. It is not a simple subject.

I answered to my satisfaction that there would still indeed be an ultraviolet radiation danger at the surface from a nearly-all-CO₂ atmosphere, especially in the UVA range. But then it occurred to me to ask about X-rays. On Earth we take it for granted that the electromagnetic spectrum below UV more or less doesn't exist in the ambient environment, but obviously that isn't a Universal given.

As time goes on, I am sure I will think of more questions. I always do. It really sets a contrast with the sort of sci-fi that just treats all this stuff as arbitrary and presumes to stave off factual questions with technobabble.

I do not mean this in a gatekeepy sort of way, but over the past years of working on Galaxy Federal I have come to see honest research as an inextricable part of the identity of science fiction storytelling. I think that by eschewing this one gives up some of their claim to the mantle of science fiction. It becomes more akin to fantasy at that point. Honest research is a necessary burden, sort of like hiking in the summer obligates one to sweat. But, unlike sweating, for me honest research is also quite a gratifying reward. I never feel as in-touch with the Universe, nor have so many run-ins with my old high school math and science education, as I do when I am researching my fiction. (The Curious Tale too, but that's just me being me and is an asterisk for another day. I guess in this sense you can think of The Curious Tale as being more sci-fi than fantasy; I have long conceived of it to myself that way.)

One of the most frustrating aspects of the challenge of honest background research is that either the Internet has become steadily less and less useful as an information-lookup service for these kinds of queries (from some combination of informative websites going offline and the degradation of search engine utility), or the means of information-lookup have changed such that they have become steadily less accessful to me. Whatever the causes, in my experience good information is getting harder and harder to come by. I find it distressing that my general queries are overwhelmingly funneled through Quora, StackExchange, and Reddit before delivering me with specific terminologies, numbers, and concepts that I can then google directly.

I was speaking not terribly long ago with someone who works at Google, and they were telling me about Google Search's changing philosophy over the years. I summed it up rather bitterly as: "They've destroyed the Second Great Library of Alexandria and replaced it with Ask Jeeves." And the Google employee more or less agreed.

That's sad, and it's also sad that more readers don't see sci-fi as an opportunity to learn about science. The decline of "hard" sci-fi in books and the near-total absence of it in TV and film productions speaks to the nature of (and subsequently reinforces) audience preferences. But not everyone lives in that demographic, and not everyone who does live there has to stay there. if I have an opportunity to introduce readers to (or remind them of) some of the scientific ideas that fascinate me, then, commensurate with my reward for doing the honest research of preparing them for the story, I hope there will be reflected the reward of reader enjoyment of these little amuse-bouches.

[oc-cityworld]

Detailed guidelines/suggestions post

Hey there! I shop for a lot of ocs to draw on art fight, but you're more than welcome and encouraged to shoot a request in my inbox-- I just make no guarantees I'll get to it.

You can truly freeball it and shoot reqs into my inbox like a medieval catapult on fire, but very optionally if you're curious, I wrote some in depth outlines for what makes it easier on me!

1.Submissions

Exact vehicle of submissions, ideally, is a message in my askbox with a link to a social media post, art fight page, toyhouse, or other page with pics of your oc in one easy place with a text description of more info like their name etc

Second-best preferred is using the submission function to deliver the same thing (several images + text details). No minimum or maximum, if you only have one reference thats totally fine!! But the more you tell/show me, the more i can appreciate them <3

There’s no wrong way to do it! The listed above are just what I prefer, but as long as I have access to at least one good reference, we’re all set 👍

1.Visuals

Of course, full bodies help the most. If you have an all angles reference sheet, it's great to include it. References of their visual world like scenery, magic or tech VFX, visual language... The more rich your references, the more material for me to latch onto and likely more excited I get abt it! I really love character work in my illustration, IE showing their personality through face and body language, so the more you tell me about who they are, the better. Pinterest boards make me go absolutely nutso and greatly multiply the chances I'll want to draw it! :D

Conversely, the less specific you are with the actual content of your request, the more likely I'll draw it. If you dump a rich library of references with no spef requests, I'll get to interpret it the way I have the most fun with! Yay! You can get specific (ex., 'please draw these two OCs studying together at the National Library of Congress') but it may make it harder for me to get to if it's out of my usual range.

Here's an example of an absolutely enticing request that got all my creative gears turning for a fully rendered piece! Note it has a variety of references, some backstory, and a couple alternate medias like a playlist and a pinboard. (This is above and beyond though, and not at all required!)

2. Limits

I won't draw NSFW or extreme body horror/gore (some light horror/injury is cool, though) so please refrain from putting those in my inbox as well. I'm ok with mechas (tho tend to interpret them liberally)

There's no hard max character limit, but to be level with you the odds I draw a req diminish greatly above 2, and go to near-zero at 3 or 4 chars.

3. Disclaimer

Also, on the subject of limits, this is your reminder that a request does not guarantee I draw it. I started this blog because I really like drawing OCs, but its still true that not everything strikes my inspiration. Not at all a reflection of your lovely amazing characters, but more of the fact I have specific taste, like anyone else! I will not be going through every req in chronological order. I may draw one from a long time ago, and then one from today. I may stop doing requests for a bit and just pull from Art Fight bookmarks that inspire me. Please don't resubmit the same req/char, but feel free to submit multiple different chars!