proud kaeya stan

this is an American Fantail. they’re a popular breed among older pigeon-keepers who want a ‘challenge.’ this bird is not just posing like this, it cannot move its head far from where it is in this picture. this is NOT a similar situation to Seramas (who set up to look Like That, and are overall pretty normal-looking chickens), this bird is just tragically deformed

this is a posed skeleton of an American Fantail with the breed standard drawing overlaid. i’ve seen these birds at shows. they can barely move and they jump at every noise because they cannot see what could be coming at them. they’re either skittish or completely shut down, and watching them try to get food is just heartbreaking (they have to turn sideways and swing their head down their tail to peck at their seed. i don’t know how they even manage to drink). sometimes when the try to walk to their food they nearly fall over because their tip-toes stance is what they’re like a majority of the time and their fan is heavy enough that they can barely support it with such delicate balance

the kicker is, people are fascinated by these birds. they marvel in how such a monstrosity is alive and want to try their hand at raising fantails themselves, because that’s what the experts do! these are the bird that everyone chooses to point out as a marvel of artificial selection, but anyone who has been around pigeons for any stretch of time knows that they are intelligent, social birds. they rely on nodding to communicate a large portion of their language, and guess what an American Fantail can’t do?

These are Jacobins. Just looking at the picture, I can’t imagine they have a whole lot of peripheral vision. Apparently their feathers in general grow so long that they have to be trimmed in order for them to breed.

This is a Zitterhall. This bird does not look okay.

This is a Modena. It looks like it’s a few steps down the road that led to the American Fantail’s abomination of a neck. I watched a couple videos of these, and they can turn their heads and straighten their necks a little, but none of the videos showed one trying to eat.

and this is what the standard dictates they should look like:

they are, in fact, much worse. the ones you found are closer (in terms of welfare concern) to the Saint, a breed with a more moderate mane that is descended from the Jacobin. they are nowhere near as bad as show quality Jacobins.

"In Pieces but Still Holding It Together." By Bouke de Vries (2020).

west coat: we hate our city and it makes us feel good

the session maps:

Also they're normally natural enemies in the wild but sometimes they occasionally hybridize?

depends on the wolf! for this exercise we'll assume a median coyote size of 30 lbs.

while all north american wolves are technically grey wolves (except the mexican red wolf!) there are more than twenty subspecies of the damn things, all of which can differ significantly in size and appearance! (many now displaced with some extinct)

for example, the mexican wolf is only barely bigger than a large coyote, with adults reaching the 50-90 lb range.

whereas the northern rocky mountain wolf has any coyote massively outclassed, ranging between 80-150 lbs!

most other north american wolves range somewhere in between. but this is why we don't say "the size of a wolf" much as a figure of speech, because they come in so many different sizes!

and when wolves and coyotes hybridize, it's generally because there's no other potential partners in the area for either animal, so they start being willing to look a little farther up the family tree, so to speak!

First: THIS RECALL IS NOT STATE SPECIFIC. IT IS NATIONWIDE.

here are the specific products and dates:

FDA page on this:

Bumblebee and his siblings he’s promised to keep safe after their parents were taken by humans

Mers live is huge colonies, taking care of them alone is a very dangerous and demanding task

With some bonus lore below!

when you’re writing a conflict between two characters or factions of characters, you need to consider whether their disagreement over the premise or over the methods. put another way: do they disagree on the problem or the solution?

this is a genuinely tricky thing to identify, especially in very complex narratives, so let’s do some very simple examples.

the situation: pacifist nation X is about to be invaded by empire Y. the laws and cultural practices of the Xians make violence and death so abhorrent that even accidental death is as minimized as possible. the Ylings, on the other hand, are totally cool with straight up murder and think diplomacy is for wimps, but are also pragmatic enough that they won’t waste troops if they don’t need to. the king of X calls in his council and asks for their opinions.

character A: It is more noble to die for one’s beliefs than to live having broken them. We should allow the Ylings to invade us and if we die, we die. character B: If all life is sacred, then our lives are also sacred. We must fight back against the Ylings, even though that means we’d be committing violence.

A and B agree on premise but not solution: they both acknowledge that the Yling invasion is a bad thing that will lead to their deaths if unopposed and that the nonviolence code is important; what they disagree on is priorities and methods.

character C: We should invite them into our nation as honored guests. Maybe they’ll spare us or at least kill us more mercifully. character D: We should propose an alliance and intentional annexation in exchange for our lives. Being part of the Yling Empire is a pretty sweet deal, actually.

C and D agree on solution but not premise: they’re both okay with just letting the empire walk in and invade, but C thinks the invasion would be a bad thing and is just trying to minimize the damage, and D thinks it would be a good thing and wants to maximize the rewards.

character E: We should fight the Ylings and stay a sovereign nation; the nonviolence code is stupid and holding us back. character D: We shouldn’t fight the Ylings and try to be peacefully part of their empire instead; we’d be true to our code and reap the rewards of an alliance.

E and F disagree on both premise and solution.

Now, all possible permutations of this argument are fine. “Is this the best way to solve the problem?” and “What actually is the problem?” are both great sources of conflict. Captain America: The Winter Soldier’s entire plot is an argument over the methods to prevent death and crime, but everyone agrees that crime is bad; one of Zuko’s big character development moments is when he realizes that the problem with the world isn’t the other nations ungratefully rejecting the prosperity and unity offered by the Fire Nation, but that the Fire Nation routinely commits genocide in their quest to colonize the rest of the world.

The issue is when a disagreement over methods is treated like a disagreement over premise. The characters are positioned like one side’s entire worldview is correct and the other is wrong, but it turns out they actually disagree with what the other does rather than what the other believes.

A big giveaway that what you’re seeing is about methods and not underlying beliefs? If at any point it is said or implied that one character “goes too far.” “Too far” implies a point before that cutoff that the other characters or the reader would be okay with. You can’t go too far if going any distance in that direction is wrong. “Frollo in the Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame goes too far when he tries to kill all the Romani in the city” implies that the problem isn’t racism in general, but mass murder specifically, and that if Frollo was only nonviolently racist, that would be fine!

Like, you know the joke about the guy who offers a woman a million dollars to sleep with him, then ten dollars after she accepts the million dollar offer, and when she’s offended and says she’s “not that kind of woman,” he says, “Oh, we agreed you were that kind of woman, now we’re just haggling over price”? If your characters are arguing about the best way to solve a problem, they have already agreed about the existence and nature of the problem. Now they’re just haggling over price.

Again: that kind of storyline is okay if you actually do want to discuss extremism v. moderation of the same basic principle. It’s okay for two characters to argue over the best way to free all of their country’s slaves. It’s also okay for two characters to discuss the best way of practicing slavery, if you want to show how ingrained it is in society or how even the character you think is a moderate is still evil or something. What doesn’t work is if your intention is to say how awful slavery is, but then the entire conflict is over the treatment of slaves rather than whether slavery is okay.