Mocktagon
underscorex:

fuckyeahmst3k:

Excuse me, I need a moment.

i am deeply affected by this

underscorex:

fuckyeahmst3k:

Excuse me, I need a moment.

i am deeply affected by this

siphersaysstuff:

wheelr:

theartofanimation:

Sakimichan

Tumblr, stop! Just… stop. Hang on. Wait.

Ugh. OK…

Give me a second.

Look.

I’ve seen these images going around a lot the past couple of days. The Disney remix obsession is wearying, but it produces a lot of great art. Sakimichan is terrific and there is something wonderful and compelling about how these pieces blur male and female sexuality. I’d love to see more male characters that embody the vixen-like appeal that’s apparent in some of these reinterpretations. Male femme fatales, male sex kittens; I am on board.

Two things bother me about this specific Tumblr post of the images. 

1. Someone did a shitty photoshop to fatten up Sakimichan’s version of male Ursula (Orson, I suppose). You can see the original here. Crediting an obviously modified image to the original artist without noting that it’s modified seems clumsy at best, disrespectful at worst. 

2. I nonetheless appreciate the shitty photoshopper’s intent. Ursula is a big woman. The male version should be a big man. Yet more  than  one fan artist has decided that the best way to make a male version of Ursula is to slim him down.

Making fat characters thin sends an ugly message about beauty.

My request to you, fan artists of the world; if you must draw Orson the Sea Warlock, make him big. Make him bara.

You don’t want there to be one standard of beauty in the world. You’re artists. You’re in a unique position to show us what’s beautiful. So show us.

All of the above, plus… no I will not shut up about Cruelliver DeVil. I wanna see a not-de-aged version. He doesn’t even need to be Peter Cushing skullface man, but… c’mon, older guys can be pretty hot too.

Try a Sir Patrick Stewart take. There’s a handsome man who can look fucking menacing when he wants to.

Take the Cruelliver that’s already there, make him a bit more gaunt and give him heterochromia, and BAM! David Bowie.

bmogtoys:

I hold in my hand a test shot for Ursenal, the first of my BMOG figures.

It is made of plastic.

Before now I’ve had sort of DIY artifacts. The 3d models, the renders of those models, 3d prints. Shadows of the final product. Something where you had to hold it and go ‘this is like what I am trying…

tannertrue:

Red X(pose is homage to Kaare Andrews’ Iron Fist)


And that’s when I realized Red X is CM Punk.

tannertrue:

Red X
(pose is homage to Kaare Andrews’ Iron Fist)

And that’s when I realized Red X is CM Punk.

underscorex:

descentintotyranny:

Who’s Afraid of Suey Park? — Julia Carrie Wong
Mar. 31 2014
Since Thursday evening, when 23-year-old writer and activist Suey Park sent out a tweet to her 19,000-odd followers—“The Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals has decided to call for #CancelColbert. Trend it.”—America’s media has been in the grips of some sort of Suey Park-derangement syndrome. Park’s call to action came in response to a tweet from The Cobert Report’s official account that contained the punchline of a segment from last Wednesday’s program. In the bit, Colbert lampooned Dan Snyder, the owner of Washington DC’s football team, by comparing the racist name of the team to racist language used against Asians. Dozens of articles have been written about the hashtag campaign. Writers at The Wall Street Journal, Slate, Salon, the Washington Post, Time, the Daily Beast, Jezebel, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post, the BBC, Mediaite, Entertainment Weekly, and many, many more have all weighed in. Almost without exception (Brittney Cooper at Salon is one of the few) these articles, essays and blog posts agree that Suey Park and the hashtag she spawned are misguided, ill-informed, unable to take a joke, unaware of the meaning of satire and/or just plain stupid.
In addition to the flood of media critiques, Park and others who joined the hashtag have faced a deluge of criticism and abuse from other Twitter users. At some points, dozens if not hundreds of tweets per minute were being addressed to Park. Many followed the script of your typical patronizing mansplainer confronted with a woman he disagrees with and is unable to resist engaging: “Don’t you understand what satire is?” etc. But many others contained racist and misogynistic slurs, rape threats, death threats and every other conceivable kind of invective, all directed toward Suey Park.
The mainstream media response to #CancelColbert has been more genteel than that which emerged from the underbelly of the internet. Two exceptions were HuffPost Live and Deadspin. On HuffPost Live, host Josh Zepps came out and said to Park’s face what much of the commentariat couched in less offensive language: “It’s just a stupid opinion.” Deadspin published a post entitled “Gooks Don’t Get Redskins Joke,” a cravenly cynical ploy to garner traffic and court controversy. (White liberal writers have shied away from criticizing Deadspin, citing the fact that the two authors of the post are Korean-American as some kind of excuse. I don’t share their sensitivity. People of color will always find someone willing to pay them money to sell out other people of color. Just ask Amy Chua.)
But for the most part, talented writers have (mis)applied their skills of logic and persuasion to explain why #CancelColbert was a bad idea. I find most of the arguments against Park (and yes I think many of the arguments are aimed directly at Park, even more than at her hashtag) to be fundamentally weak. We have been reminded again and again that Colbert’s offensive language against Asians was deployed as satire in order to attack the racism of Dan Snyder, and that the context of the statements are critical to “getting” the joke. This is obviously true, and did not need to be explained to Park, but how this invalidates the concerns of real people who feel real pain when they hear stereotypes about Asians is left unaddressed.
We have been told that, even if Colbert’s joke hurt the feelings of some Asian Americans, it was all in furtherance of a greater good—the education of people within his audience who did not realize that the name “Redskins” is an offensive slur until it was compared to anti-Asian slurs. This narrative strikes me as particularly specious. It rests on weighing the education of a group of people who have been hypothesized into existence as more important than the experience of a group of people who are actually speaking out to express their discomfort. If any journalist wants to present evidence of a single person who was moved to change their opinion of Dan Snyder by Colbert’s routine, then perhaps we can assign it a social value. I’ve yet to see any such evidence, and while I would never deny that Colbert’s performances are entertaining, there’s a difference between entertainment and enlightenment.
We have been told that Colbert’s joke was aimed at the abhorrent racism of the name of the Washington football team, and that bringing up the question of racism aimed at Asian Americans is a distraction that will hurt the cause of Native Americans. This is a charge that would be easier to swallow were it not that so many of the writers putting forward this argument have never written about changing the name of the team themselves. Park and many of her fellow #CancelColbert tweeters have a history of engaging in Twitter activism against the team’s name alongside Native American activists: See #NotYourMascot as one example. Meanwhile, the idea that Colbert is more valuable to the fight against racism than people of color who are engaging in anti-racist activism on their own terms comes perilously close to a white savior argument that deserves serious scrutiny.
Even if all these arguments against Suey Park were convincing, however, none of them explains why so many members of the mainstream media felt so irresistibly compelled to make them. That’s the question that I find most striking about this entire brouhaha. I’ve spent this past weekend considering the relative comfort and power of columnists at mainstream publications as compared to the 23-year-old activist and asking (in my best Veronica Sawyer from Heathers voice), “What is your damage?” You may not agree with her campaigns or her tactics (I have frequently disagreed with her myself) but do you really need her to shut up so badly?
I think that the real problem most people have with Park is that she has power. Over the past few days, writers with larger platforms than Park have suggested #CancelSnyder and other variations on the theme to much lesser effect. And yet when Suey Park told her followers to trend #CancelColbert, they complied, and kept the hashtag trending for hours.
The power to direct thousands of people on social media and drive a narrative without permission from any editor, publication or other form of traditional media gatekeeper is one that many in journalism wish they had and (I suspect) believe they deserve more than Park. Who the hell is she, after all? Who gave her permission? We are not used to women of color, and especially supposedly submissive Asian women, acting with such brash disregard of their elders and “betters.”
I hope that all the writers who took to their platforms to condemn #CancelColbert and Suey Park ask themselves what they had to lose by supporting her, or at least by remaining silent. From where I stand, the distinction between the internet trolls who want Park to be quiet and the media commenters who want Park to be quiet is narrower than the media commenters would want to admit. Park’s influence challenges the traditional power structure of a mainstream media born of and endlessly reinforcing a system of white supremacy. The sheer volume of her detractors says more about their fear of losing influence than it does about anything else.

This is also really good.
"Meanwhile, the idea that Colbert is more valuable to the fight against racism than people of color who are engaging in anti-racist activism on their own terms comes perilously close to a white savior argument that deserves serious scrutiny."
Fuck yes.

I’m kinda uncomfortable with the part of this article that calls any Asian who disagrees with Suey Park on this issue a profiteering race traitor.
I’m also really uncomfortable with the general trend of “call for the head-on-a-pike of anyone who fucks up visibly, no matter their intentions or willingness to apologize or learn from their mistakes” and “White men aren’t allowed to perform satire because <they don’t deserve it/satire doesn’t work/it isn’t really satire if I don’t like it/etc>.”
Still, I think there are important takeaways from this:
1) The racism and sexism of people rushing to Colbert’s defense (or, rather, rushing to an opportunity to attack Suey Park) is appalling. Those people should be ashamed of themselves.
2) Colbert does tend to use overt-bigotry-toward-Asians as his go-to for painting his character as a racist, while the character’s racist attitudes toward, for example, black people tends to be more ignorance-driven. The way that overt bigotry seems OK—or even merely less bad—is something that needs to be corrected both in society at large and in Colbert’s writer’s room in particular.
3) Dan Snyder’s continued defense of the name of his football team is terrible.
I really wish the media circus around the whole thing didn’t make it more difficult for those points to get much attention. Activism isn’t easy, and it really doesn’t help its efficacy when both the activists and the people trying to suppress/oppose them both seem eager to reduce an issue to a single hero on one side and a single villain on the other.

underscorex:

descentintotyranny:

Who’s Afraid of Suey Park? — Julia Carrie Wong

Mar. 31 2014

Since Thursday evening, when 23-year-old writer and activist Suey Park sent out a tweet to her 19,000-odd followers—“The Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals has decided to call for #CancelColbert. Trend it.”—America’s media has been in the grips of some sort of Suey Park-derangement syndrome. Park’s call to action came in response to a tweet from The Cobert Report’s official account that contained the punchline of a segment from last Wednesday’s program. In the bit, Colbert lampooned Dan Snyder, the owner of Washington DC’s football team, by comparing the racist name of the team to racist language used against Asians. Dozens of articles have been written about the hashtag campaign. Writers at The Wall Street Journal, Slate, Salon, the Washington Post, Time, the Daily Beast, Jezebel, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post, the BBC, Mediaite, Entertainment Weekly, and many, many more have all weighed in. Almost without exception (Brittney Cooper at Salon is one of the few) these articles, essays and blog posts agree that Suey Park and the hashtag she spawned are misguided, ill-informed, unable to take a joke, unaware of the meaning of satire and/or just plain stupid.

In addition to the flood of media critiques, Park and others who joined the hashtag have faced a deluge of criticism and abuse from other Twitter users. At some points, dozens if not hundreds of tweets per minute were being addressed to Park. Many followed the script of your typical patronizing mansplainer confronted with a woman he disagrees with and is unable to resist engaging: “Don’t you understand what satire is?” etc. But many others contained racist and misogynistic slurs, rape threats, death threats and every other conceivable kind of invective, all directed toward Suey Park.

The mainstream media response to #CancelColbert has been more genteel than that which emerged from the underbelly of the internet. Two exceptions were HuffPost Live and Deadspin. On HuffPost Live, host Josh Zepps came out and said to Park’s face what much of the commentariat couched in less offensive language: “It’s just a stupid opinion.” Deadspin published a post entitled “Gooks Don’t Get Redskins Joke,” a cravenly cynical ploy to garner traffic and court controversy. (White liberal writers have shied away from criticizing Deadspin, citing the fact that the two authors of the post are Korean-American as some kind of excuse. I don’t share their sensitivity. People of color will always find someone willing to pay them money to sell out other people of color. Just ask Amy Chua.)

But for the most part, talented writers have (mis)applied their skills of logic and persuasion to explain why #CancelColbert was a bad idea. I find most of the arguments against Park (and yes I think many of the arguments are aimed directly at Park, even more than at her hashtag) to be fundamentally weak. We have been reminded again and again that Colbert’s offensive language against Asians was deployed as satire in order to attack the racism of Dan Snyder, and that the context of the statements are critical to “getting” the joke. This is obviously true, and did not need to be explained to Park, but how this invalidates the concerns of real people who feel real pain when they hear stereotypes about Asians is left unaddressed.

We have been told that, even if Colbert’s joke hurt the feelings of some Asian Americans, it was all in furtherance of a greater good—the education of people within his audience who did not realize that the name “Redskins” is an offensive slur until it was compared to anti-Asian slurs. This narrative strikes me as particularly specious. It rests on weighing the education of a group of people who have been hypothesized into existence as more important than the experience of a group of people who are actually speaking out to express their discomfort. If any journalist wants to present evidence of a single person who was moved to change their opinion of Dan Snyder by Colbert’s routine, then perhaps we can assign it a social value. I’ve yet to see any such evidence, and while I would never deny that Colbert’s performances are entertaining, there’s a difference between entertainment and enlightenment.

We have been told that Colbert’s joke was aimed at the abhorrent racism of the name of the Washington football team, and that bringing up the question of racism aimed at Asian Americans is a distraction that will hurt the cause of Native Americans. This is a charge that would be easier to swallow were it not that so many of the writers putting forward this argument have never written about changing the name of the team themselves. Park and many of her fellow #CancelColbert tweeters have a history of engaging in Twitter activism against the team’s name alongside Native American activists: See #NotYourMascot as one example. Meanwhile, the idea that Colbert is more valuable to the fight against racism than people of color who are engaging in anti-racist activism on their own terms comes perilously close to a white savior argument that deserves serious scrutiny.

Even if all these arguments against Suey Park were convincing, however, none of them explains why so many members of the mainstream media felt so irresistibly compelled to make them. That’s the question that I find most striking about this entire brouhaha. I’ve spent this past weekend considering the relative comfort and power of columnists at mainstream publications as compared to the 23-year-old activist and asking (in my best Veronica Sawyer from Heathers voice), “What is your damage?” You may not agree with her campaigns or her tactics (I have frequently disagreed with her myself) but do you really need her to shut up so badly?

I think that the real problem most people have with Park is that she has power. Over the past few days, writers with larger platforms than Park have suggested #CancelSnyder and other variations on the theme to much lesser effect. And yet when Suey Park told her followers to trend #CancelColbert, they complied, and kept the hashtag trending for hours.

The power to direct thousands of people on social media and drive a narrative without permission from any editor, publication or other form of traditional media gatekeeper is one that many in journalism wish they had and (I suspect) believe they deserve more than Park. Who the hell is she, after all? Who gave her permission? We are not used to women of color, and especially supposedly submissive Asian women, acting with such brash disregard of their elders and “betters.”

I hope that all the writers who took to their platforms to condemn #CancelColbert and Suey Park ask themselves what they had to lose by supporting her, or at least by remaining silent. From where I stand, the distinction between the internet trolls who want Park to be quiet and the media commenters who want Park to be quiet is narrower than the media commenters would want to admit. Park’s influence challenges the traditional power structure of a mainstream media born of and endlessly reinforcing a system of white supremacy. The sheer volume of her detractors says more about their fear of losing influence than it does about anything else.

This is also really good.

"Meanwhile, the idea that Colbert is more valuable to the fight against racism than people of color who are engaging in anti-racist activism on their own terms comes perilously close to a white savior argument that deserves serious scrutiny."

Fuck yes.

I’m kinda uncomfortable with the part of this article that calls any Asian who disagrees with Suey Park on this issue a profiteering race traitor.

I’m also really uncomfortable with the general trend of “call for the head-on-a-pike of anyone who fucks up visibly, no matter their intentions or willingness to apologize or learn from their mistakes” and “White men aren’t allowed to perform satire because <they don’t deserve it/satire doesn’t work/it isn’t really satire if I don’t like it/etc>.”

Still, I think there are important takeaways from this:

1) The racism and sexism of people rushing to Colbert’s defense (or, rather, rushing to an opportunity to attack Suey Park) is appalling. Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

2) Colbert does tend to use overt-bigotry-toward-Asians as his go-to for painting his character as a racist, while the character’s racist attitudes toward, for example, black people tends to be more ignorance-driven. The way that overt bigotry seems OK—or even merely less bad—is something that needs to be corrected both in society at large and in Colbert’s writer’s room in particular.

3) Dan Snyder’s continued defense of the name of his football team is terrible.

I really wish the media circus around the whole thing didn’t make it more difficult for those points to get much attention. Activism isn’t easy, and it really doesn’t help its efficacy when both the activists and the people trying to suppress/oppose them both seem eager to reduce an issue to a single hero on one side and a single villain on the other.

underscorex:

wretchedoftheearth:

is this readable and understandable? hoping to turn it in in a few hours

The Deep South: We lock up our poors equally, thank you very much.

Keep in mind, the scale bottoms out at nearly 2 Black : 1 White.

And that statistically normal (assuming you don’t adjust for income distribution across race) in Mississippi, the state with the highest black population, would be 2 Black : 3 White, while in Vermont, it should be 1 Black : 100 White and it’s 14 Black: 1 White.

(Assuming the ratio demonstrated isn’t already taking account overall population disparity into account. This is why I hate some infographics—the best visualizations of the actual situation require the most adjustment to provide easily-digestible information, and they often don’t leave space to explain whether or not that manipulation has even been done or what the information they’re presenting actually means. Looking at the cited source, though, I’m not entirely clear where they found the per-state data in the report.)

I will make any action figure accessory you want!

therobotmonster:

Hey guys.

Here’s the deal, my car is dead and I need to raise money to get it fixed. This is proving tougher than expected, as I sold off a lot of my collection to get BMOG off the ground and those funds are, of course, not available for personal expenses.So I’m trying something new.

You want a Transformers, MOTU, TMNT or other action figure weapon? I’ll make it for you.

Specifically, I will turn your description, rough sketch or general request into a Shapeways-printable source file. You can see my various Shapeways creations by clicking on this sentence.

You just have to specify what you want and what size handle you need (most TFs use a 5mm peg, legion figures use a 3mm) A basic weapon (mechanical details, no special features) will cost $20. imageimageimage

A complex weapon, such as a two-part weapon, parts with printable chains, something with a lot of elaborate surface detail or organic detailing, mini-figures, Targetmaster-style weapons, custom heads, etc, are negotiated on a per-item basis.

imageimageimageimage You get a copy of the 3d-printable file and can order a copy from Shapeways or use another 3d printing service. Printing costs are your own, though I will do everything I can to keep the print as inexpensive as possible unless you request otherwise.

I reserve the right to put these designs up in my own Shapeways store, as-is or modified. If you want exclusive rights (such as for making a 3rd party product, selling through your own Shapeways store, or just to maintain exclusivity) we can discuss those terms.

imageimage If you just want to help out,

Click here and you can buy something from my shapeways store or grab a $25 collection of all of my digital d20 gaming supplements. (a $114 dollar value) or just kick me a few bucks on paypal to trenttroop (at) gmail (dot) com.

PM me or email me (trenttroop (at) gmail (dot) com) if interested.

maxistentialist:

Business Insider:

Nestled in the latest annual report from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is a line that underscores just how much the world’s largest general merchandise retailer and its shareholders have depended on public assistance programs in recent years.

The Bentonville, Ark., company’s report…

aaron-archer-art:

Throwback Thursday: my Takara badge


I love that they did a meaning-based translation of his last name.

aaron-archer-art:

Throwback Thursday: my Takara badge

I love that they did a meaning-based translation of his last name.

therobotmonster:

Ranger Guy (Best of all the Guys!)

I was inspired by the Ranger G.U.Y.S. figure in this past week’s episode of Steven Universe, “Onion Trade”. It was a fun little McGuffin, so I cranked out a 3d printable version (with some tweaks of course.)

Ranger Guy is a single piece (wrong colored hat will require hand-painting) figurine that comes in either a 2 inch M.U.S.C.L.E. style format or a 1.5 inch vending-machine-toy format. The latter is the cheaper of the two.

Creative liberties: He’s got bigger boots, actual hands in a ‘ready to draw’ position and a thicker hat brim to resist breakage. Also, his kerchief knot can’t magically swap what side of his head it’s on.

I rarely do organic or cartoony-character style modelling in 3d (I mostly make robots) But for a quickie this was a fun experiment.