Reblogged prismatic-bell
I'm sure if I try hard enough I'll stop having ADHD (guess I'll never learn). 39 Days until book release! Pre-order here or everywhere where books are sold!
Reblogged jewish-rock
There was a part two:
Reblogged prismatic-bell
After school care pulled me aside about my child dropping an f-bomb “without remorse” and I put on my concerned face and nodded a bunch.
Apparently he was building something with a younger kid “who really looks up to him and is just starting to make friends” and said “Hey, you’re really fucking good at this.” which is, in my estimation, really a parenting victory.
I absolutely failed at doing this:
Reblogged prismatic-bell
My parents are giving updates on mom’s cancer treatment and testing. And it’s generally just hard to parse how both of them text.
My mom loves to use ellipses and fragmented sentences, my dad likes to ramble and not actually say anything of substance.
While struggling through the typos and wretched grammar I stopped dead when I saw my dad, instead of saying, “caveat” had written: “There’s one caviar.”
Today’s update is a head scratcher because I’m not actually sure what she was trying to say.
For context, she’s getting released from round two of chemo. To that end they have given her a port to easily give medication and take her blood. That’s just gonna stay in for a while. Those are the things I know.
So she lets me know she’s home. This text reads, “I’m home, sweet”
Then she texts a photo of a pile of figs and adds “like figs”. “Bumper crop” (my mom has never understood the meaning of a bumper crop and I’m not gonna go there)
At this point I’m not sure if she’s offering figs or being home is… sweet like figs? Maybe both.
Then she says, “I have been assimated”
The photo that follows is her chest, presumably showing off her new port.
But my wife and I can’t stop laughing. What the fuck is assimated? We don’t know.
My wife thinks she’s telling us that it means she’s pooping.
“Assassinated? Assimilated? Like into the borg?” I ventured.
“That would be a wild joke from someone who’s never watched Star Trek.”
Honestly, it’s anyone’s guess.
I had to know and I caved and finally asked for clarification and she did mean she’d been assimilated into the Borg!
Assimated still makes me laugh.
Reblogged prismatic-bell
Two conclusions to be drawn from this picture:
1 - the geese in the background show that the fake coyote doesn't deter geese
2 - the fact they needed to put up a sign implies that the fake coyote did deter humans
Reblogged prismatic-bell
Mammal in a Sunday Dress, by Georgina M. Cox, 2026
Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back. The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act. For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body. The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser. Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology. Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.
Reblogged shofarsogood
people will call rap overstimulating and then listen to hyper pop
i cant talk to people who hate on entire genres about music they have a sinister aura that i do not want to interact with
Even if it's Country?
yes hot take the hatred of country music as a whole will often come down to classism i love country music i love bluegrass i love folk and writing off a whole genre or type of music is crazyyyyyyy
Reblogged shofarsogood
For the people who wanted a tutorial for 6 strand challah.
1. Top right goes to top left and top left goes to top right
2. Top right to centre and second from left to top right
3. Top left to centre and second from right to top left
Repeat 2 & 3 until you run out of dough
Enjoy!
(if you make it, tag me in a pic so I can see and also share!!!!!)
Reblogged shofarsogood
The jumblr experience of going through the notes of posts with over 1k notes and have broken Jcontainment to find the antisemites to put on your block list.
Reblogged shofarsogood
korratea
this video is so well done it deserves an oscar
IN A ROW?
oh my god the lipsync on this is so good
Reblogged shofarsogood
The Darfur genocide of 2003 was, in some ways, the "real Gaza." A broad coalition of humanitarian activists raised the alarm. There was intense pressure to recognize the atrocities as genocide. The U.S. government investigated the evidence and concluded that it was indeed a genocide, while the United Nations denied it. Ultimately, however, almost nothing was done to stop it. An Arab-Muslim supremacist regime was carrying out a genuine genocide against Black African communities.
In Gaza, the drama repeated itself, but the facts were inverted. A broad coalition of activists again raised the alarm and demanded that Israel be accused of genocide. The United States refused to endorse the accusation, while now the United Nations asserted it. Massive international pressure was mobilized to stop the war. This time, however, the alleged perpetrator was a Western democracy fighting an Islamist movement who themselves had committed genocide.
What is striking is that genuine humanitarian concern in Darfur failed to produce meaningful intervention, while pseudo-humanitarian concern in Gaza produced extraordinary international intervention. In the one case, a real genocide generated recognition without intervention, in the other, an imaginary genocide generated intervention that itself preserved a genocidal regime in power.
And note that the ICC is pursuing charges of genocide while the UN continues to claim there was no intent.
And also that the genocide is now repeating itself and the UN is STILL ignoring it.
That's part of what's happening in Sudan, by the way. Darfur is a region in Sudan.
It was propped up by China.
Reblogged shofarsogood
you really cannot say
“I hate Isreal so much it’s unreal”
without definitionally meaning
“I hate the sole place on earth made to be safe for Jews”
and
“I hate the country known for housing half the Jews on the planet”
which is easily understood to mean
“I hate Jews”
Especially when you talk about the country and its people using antisemitic language.
I hope this explains why you might be called antisemitic! If you disagree keep it to yourselves. It is not nonjews that get to say what isn’t antisemitism. Or more aptly. judenhass.
Reblogged shofarsogood
"Absolutely no one comes to save us but us."
Ismatu Gwendolyn, "you've been traumatized into hating reading (and it makes you easier to oppress)", from Threadings, on Substack [ID'd]
HEY wanna read but annoyed on where to find copies of books?
I've been looking for such archives, thanks
Reblogged shofarsogood
Anonymous asked:
where do the reports of IDF intentionally targeting children come from?
They come from a mix of sources, Anon, and the quality varies wildly.
Some originate from Hamas-controlled media in Gaza, which has obvious incentives to portray Israeli actions in the worst possible light. Others come from activist organizations like Defense for Children International-Palestine, which has documented ties to terrorist groups.
The most problematic source is social media, where unverified videos get shared with inflammatory captions. A video of injured children in Syria gets recycled as "proof" of Israeli war crimes.
Here's what makes this tricky - children do die in Gaza, and some are killed by Israeli strikes. But there's a massive difference between children being killed in military operations (tragic but not illegal) and children being deliberately targeted (which would be a war crime).
The "intentionally targeting" claim almost never has anything remotely like evidence. It's usually inference: children died, therefore they must have been targeted.
There's also something darker at work here. The idea that Jews deliberately murder children taps into blood libel accusations that have persisted for centuries. Today's version just swaps IDF uniforms for medieval robes, but the underlying antisemitic fantasy remains the same.
Credible investigations find no systematic policy of targeting children and there's been no direct evidence of the IDF targeting children.
But facts now matter less than narrative and emotional resonance.
"IDF kills children" gets clicks.
and these photos are so obviously photoshopped. like it’s not something subtle that could trick someone. it’s really obvious fake imagery that anyone can make on the computer at home.
The New York Times has a history of spreading obvious propaganda. This isn’t bias. This is an intentional campaign. The only possible explanation is that some people there are knowingly cooperating to do this. Probably some of them are actually working with Russian and or Iran and or Chinese agents to spread propaganda, but even if it’s just a group of people at the Times doing it on their own out of hatred, it’s still evil and wrong.
this kind of propaganda incites hate and costs lives. It’s part of a digital information campaign designed to incite genocidal hatred of Jews and Israelis around the world. It’s not enough to stop it. It needs to be exposed. And the people involved need to be held accountable.
Just like during the Holocaust while the first priority was obviously stopping the mass murder machine, that wasn’t enough. What happened had to be documented and exposed and the perpetrators had to be held accountable (tho of course not nearly enough were).
Reblogged shofarsogood
“I very proudly entered the forestry school as an 18-year-old and telling them that the reason that I wanted to study botany was because I wanted to know why asters and goldenrod looked so beautiful together. These are these amazing displays of this bright, chrome yellow and deep purple of New England aster, and they look stunning together. And the two plants so often intermingle rather than living apart from one another, and I wanted to know why that was. I thought that surely in the order and the harmony of the universe, there would be an explanation for why they looked so beautiful together. And I was told that that was not science, that if I was interested in beauty, I should go to art school. Which was really demoralizing as a freshman, but I came to understand that question wasn’t going to be answered by science, that science, as a way of knowing, explicitly sets aside our emotions, our aesthetic reactions to things. We have to analyze them as if they were just pure material, and not matter and spirit together. And, yes, as it turns out, there’s a very good biophysical explanation for why those plants grow together, so it’s a matter of aesthetics and it’s a matter of ecology. Those complimentary colors of purple and gold together, being opposites on the color wheel, they’re so vivid, they actually attract far more pollinators than if those two grew apart from one another. So each of those plants benefits by combining its beauty with the beauty of the other. And that’s a question that science can address, certainly, as well as artists. And I just think that “Why is the world so beautiful?” is a question that we all ought to be embracing.”
— Robin Wall Kimmerer, “The Intelligence of Plants”, from the podcast On Being with Krista Tippett (via peatbogbodyhasmoved)
Source: onbeing.org
Googled it and you know what, it is beautiful:
[ID: a photograph of purple asters growing amidst bright yellow goldenrod flowers. End ID]