Urist McDorf

Urist McDorf

One fat, geeky feminist crafters blog of random crap.
castielcampbell:

dynastylnoire:

stovestalker:

noshamejustlove:

zorobro:

shota-purinsu:

zorobro:

linzthenerd:

theguilteaparty:

crippledcuriosity:

itsfondue:

Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay

I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:
Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.
I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.

The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’
Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.
Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them. 

I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts. 

Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.

I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.
Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.
Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.
Matthew 8:5-13
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.
In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.

^^^^this

reblogging for the comments ^^^^^^

EXCUSE ME WHILE I REBLOG THIS FIFTY MILLION TIMES

This commentary is so powerful. Someone is going to get delivered.

 IN OTHER WORDS JESUS BLESSED THEM, AND THEIR UNION! 
castielcampbell:

dynastylnoire:

stovestalker:

noshamejustlove:

zorobro:

shota-purinsu:

zorobro:

linzthenerd:

theguilteaparty:

crippledcuriosity:

itsfondue:

Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay

I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:
Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.
I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.

The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’
Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.
Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them. 

I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts. 

Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.

I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.
Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.
Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.
Matthew 8:5-13
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.
In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.

^^^^this

reblogging for the comments ^^^^^^

EXCUSE ME WHILE I REBLOG THIS FIFTY MILLION TIMES

This commentary is so powerful. Someone is going to get delivered.

 IN OTHER WORDS JESUS BLESSED THEM, AND THEIR UNION!

castielcampbell:

dynastylnoire:

stovestalker:

noshamejustlove:

zorobro:

shota-purinsu:

zorobro:

linzthenerd:

theguilteaparty:

crippledcuriosity:

itsfondue:

Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay

I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:

Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.

I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.

The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’

Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.

Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them. 

I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts. 

Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.

I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.

Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.

Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.

Matthew 8:5-13

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.

In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.

^^^^this

reblogging for the comments ^^^^^^

EXCUSE ME WHILE I REBLOG THIS FIFTY MILLION TIMES

This commentary is so powerful. Someone is going to get delivered.

IN OTHER WORDS JESUS BLESSED THEM, AND THEIR UNION!

(Source: idiotsonfb, via mytrashcollection)

Richard Murphy: On the sale of HMRC taxpayer data

relivingthe80s:

As many will know I have been campaigning for country-by-country reporting of accounting and tax data by multinational companies for overcast decade. As a result of that work, and campaigning by many others, this issue reached the international taxvagendalast year, and then the fight back began.

At the OECD those multinational businesses – whose trading information whether at group or subsidiary level should, in my opinion, be on public record because of the limited liability they enjoy – have been saying two things. The first is that this is an infringement of their right to privacy and the second is that tax authorities can’t be relied upon to protect the private nature of this data.

I have to date dismissed both concerns.

However, now we know that the UK government is apparently planning to sell tax payer data to commercial organisations and researchers (although the latter is just PR; they won’t be able to afford it). So the very same companies who object to filing information on their tax affairs that will ensure they pay the right amount of tax in the right place at the right time will now be able to buy information on the tax affairs of people who do just that.

You really could not make up such staggering hypocrisy from both big business and HMRC.

darkestgreen:

thebestworstidea:

resilientkate:

softgore:


“This piece was primarily a trust exercise, in which she told viewers she would not move for six hours no matter what they did to her.  She placed 72 objects one could use in pleasing or destructive ways, ranging from flowers and a feather boa to a knife and a loaded pistol, on a table near her and invited the viewers to use them on her however they wanted.  
Initially, Abramović said, viewers were peaceful and timid, but it escalated to violence quickly.  “The experience I learned was that … if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed… I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.”
This piece revealed something terrible about humanity, similar to what Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment or Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiment, both of which also proved how readily people will harm one another under unusual circumstances.” 
This performance showed just how easy it is to dehumanize a person who doesn’t fight back, and is particularly powerful because it defies what we think we know about ourselves. I’m certain the no one reading this believes the people around him/her capable of doing such things to another human being, but this performance proves otherwise.”

this is why performance art is important


So every single person who told me ‘ignore them they’ll go away’ and ‘you can’t let them know they bothered you’ and ‘They’ll stop if they don’t see you react’ and all that bull shit, my entire school career, I want you to look good and hard at this.
I want you to think about what you said.
What you keep saying.
What you are telling your children.
You are making them powerless.

that last comment. actually crying.

darkestgreen:

thebestworstidea:

resilientkate:

softgore:

“This piece was primarily a trust exercise, in which she told viewers she would not move for six hours no matter what they did to her.  She placed 72 objects one could use in pleasing or destructive ways, ranging from flowers and a feather boa to a knife and a loaded pistol, on a table near her and invited the viewers to use them on her however they wanted. 

Initially, Abramović said, viewers were peaceful and timid, but it escalated to violence quickly.  “The experience I learned was that … if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed… I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.”

This piece revealed something terrible about humanity, similar to what Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment or Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiment, both of which also proved how readily people will harm one another under unusual circumstances.”

This performance showed just how easy it is to dehumanize a person who doesn’t fight back, and is particularly powerful because it defies what we think we know about ourselves. I’m certain the no one reading this believes the people around him/her capable of doing such things to another human being, but this performance proves otherwise.”

this is why performance art is important

So every single person who told me ‘ignore them they’ll go away’ and ‘you can’t let them know they bothered you’ and ‘They’ll stop if they don’t see you react’ and all that bull shit, my entire school career, I want you to look good and hard at this.

I want you to think about what you said.

What you keep saying.

What you are telling your children.

You are making them powerless.

that last comment. actually crying.

(Source: andrewfishman, via mytrashcollection)

noirbettie:

somehowfurious:

kissing-monsters:

apiphile:

sexxxisbeautiful:

pizzagrrrl:

Peggielene Bartels, A.K.A. King Peggy, is currently the King of Otuam, Ghana. She was chosen to be one of only three female kings in Ghana, and when she discovered that male chauvinists wanted her to only be a figurehead, she said: “They were treating me like I am a second-class citizen because I am a woman. I said, ‘Hell no, you’re not going to do this to a woman!’” When she encountered corruption and the threat of embezzlement to the royal funds, she declared “I’m going to squeeze their balls so hard their eyes pop!”
King Peggy has maintained her work in Ghana’s embassy in Washington, D.C. while making education affordable in Otuam, installing borehead wells to produce clean drinking water, enforcing incarceration laws to deal with domestic violence, replenishing the royal coffers by taxing Otuam’s fishing industry to improve life in the village, and appointing three women to her council.
“Nobody should tell you, ‘You’re a woman, you can’t do it,’” she insists. “You can do it. Be ready to accept it when the calling comes.”
Quoted from the Spring/Summer 2012 issue of Ms. Magazine.

What a beautiful badass woman.

King Peggy has been on my blog before but this is my goddamn blog and I will have King Peggy on here twice if I want.

MORE FEMALE KINGS.

Always reblog King Peggy, who is on my dash far less than she should be. Did you know she has written a book about her life? It is great, and you should all get right on that if you haven’t already.

Bitches get shit done.

noirbettie:

somehowfurious:

kissing-monsters:

apiphile:

sexxxisbeautiful:

pizzagrrrl:

Peggielene Bartels, A.K.A. King Peggy, is currently the King of Otuam, Ghana. She was chosen to be one of only three female kings in Ghana, and when she discovered that male chauvinists wanted her to only be a figurehead, she said: “They were treating me like I am a second-class citizen because I am a woman. I said, ‘Hell no, you’re not going to do this to a woman!’” When she encountered corruption and the threat of embezzlement to the royal funds, she declared “I’m going to squeeze their balls so hard their eyes pop!”

King Peggy has maintained her work in Ghana’s embassy in Washington, D.C. while making education affordable in Otuam, installing borehead wells to produce clean drinking water, enforcing incarceration laws to deal with domestic violence, replenishing the royal coffers by taxing Otuam’s fishing industry to improve life in the village, and appointing three women to her council.

“Nobody should tell you, ‘You’re a woman, you can’t do it,’” she insists. “You can do it. Be ready to accept it when the calling comes.”

Quoted from the Spring/Summer 2012 issue of Ms. Magazine.

What a beautiful badass woman.

King Peggy has been on my blog before but this is my goddamn blog and I will have King Peggy on here twice if I want.

MORE FEMALE KINGS.

Always reblog King Peggy, who is on my dash far less than she should be. Did you know she has written a book about her life? It is great, and you should all get right on that if you haven’t already.

Bitches get shit done.

(Source: pizza-grrrl, via mytrashcollection)

vivianvivisection:

straight boys think girls can’t take compliments, and that’s ridiculous cause i’ve seen so many girls compliment each other, i’ve seen conversations & friendships blossom from girls complimenting each other in line, on the street, at school waiting for the bys, pretty much anywhere.

the problem is straight boys think sexual harassment & assault are compliments.

(via mytrashcollection)

Food banks see donations surge after being criticised by Mail on Sunday

relivingthe80s:

Britain’s biggest food bank provider has seen a surge in donations after a Mail on Sunday article criticised the charity for failing to run proper checks on people claiming food parcels.

Before the article, there had been about 250 public donations since the Trussell Trust launched its JustGiving page in late January. That jumped to more than 3,300, worth more than £36,000. Several donors cited the article as the reason for contributing.

“The Mail on Sunday story appalled me. This is the least I can do to apologise for their crime,” said Anonymous after donating £10.

Another, Spitting Feathers, said: “I am incensed by the disgraceful article. Call this journalism? I don’t. I’m not a Christian and admire the work being done by human beings for their fellow human beings. Thank you.”

The Mail on Sunday said it carried out an investigation which found that volunteers did not carry out adequate checks on those who claim vouchers and one of its reporters obtained three days’ food simply by telling staff at a Citizens Advice bureau – without any proof – that he was unemployed. Many claiming food parcels were also asylum seekers, the paper reported.

Continue reading…

notcuddles:

xubuntuthedragon:

rooksss:

salmonmun-and-switchblademuse:

HELP I’M DYING

THE NOISES IT MAKES WHEN IT EATS

UGH

AWWW BABY ; 0 ;

; 0 ;

What a great muppet

(via coelasquid)

shingworks:

joy-ang:

Happy Easter! Here are some song bird egg cookies to celebrate the holiday. More photos and info on my Pipio blog.

This is the most ridiculously adorable thing I’ve ever seen

songbird eggs!

shingworks:

joy-ang:

Happy Easter! Here are some song bird egg cookies to celebrate the holiday. More photos and info on my Pipio blog.

This is the most ridiculously adorable thing I’ve ever seen

songbird eggs!

(via findchaos)

rionhunter:

I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 
To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.
This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.
For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved. If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?Yeah, a little trickier.In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.
As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.
The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.


SCIENCErionhunter:

I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 
To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.
This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.
For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved. If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?Yeah, a little trickier.In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.
As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.
The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.


SCIENCErionhunter:

I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 
To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.
This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.
For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved. If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?Yeah, a little trickier.In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.
As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.
The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.


SCIENCE

rionhunter:

I made a response to this, but unfortunately, tumblr has a way of eating up anything more than 10 lines long, and it got a little lost.  So, even though I’m not Hank, I thought I would make a full post explaining the science. 

To understand why it’s happening, though, I’m going to have to quickly explain to you what is happening first.

Hopefully we all know that animation (and film) is just a collection of images, flashed in quick succession.  The motion that we see, however, is pieced together in our brains, thanks to a thing called ‘persistence of vision’.

Persistence of Vision is caused by the lag in your brain.  Seriously.
That brief instant it takes for your brain to understand what it’s seeing is the reason you’re able to watch movies.  And we should be thankful for that brief instant.

Light comes into your eyeballs, and it’s crazy hectic data.  There’s so much stuff happening all the time everywhere.  And while our brains are good, they can’t process everything they’re seeing at light speed.  Everything we perceive through our retinas is just light, bouncing off other things.  We all know that, but it’s something we often forget.

The brain processes one instant of reality, then a snapshot of the next, and then the next, and so on, and pieces them together to create motion.

This is everything.  This is your entire reality.  The perception of instances blended together to form a delicious smoothy of senses.

For motion to be consistent, however, what it’s seeing needs to resemble what it was seeing the moment before.  For example, for objectX to look like it’s moving, it needs to mostly be where it was the microsecond before, but slightly not.

Basically, you need to think about those ol’ claymations kids make, where the lego slowly edges fowards.  You need to take that concept, and apply it to everything you’ve ever known and loved.

If objectX doesn’t overlap where it was before, it’ll look liked it appeared there out of nowhere or a whole new objectX.  This is when the illusion of movement is broken.  It doesn’t occur in live-action movies or reality as much, because it’s hard to break the illusion of reality when you’re in reality, whereas to create a realistic perception of reality, from nothing, on a screen?

Yeah, a little trickier.

In an industry setting, animators have to create at least 25 frames for every second of footage (FPS).  And sometimes, in that 25 frames, animators need to have something move so fast on a frame, that it doesn’t overlap its previous self.

Their solution, as you probably know, is to stretch and contort their object in a way that’s not dissimilar from motion blur with cameras.  Especially when you acknowledge that motion blur is everything that’s happening for that 1/25th of a second.

Again, a lot of this is common knowledge, but it’s a matter of how it all pieces together to work.

As you can see here, in figure A, the hotdogs are smoothly sliding out at a consistent speed, which means, if you were to mark each spot they were in every frame, the marks would make a straight line.

The intervals between each marking isn’t very much, because they’re moving quite slowly.  The hotdogs are mostly overlapping themselves between each frame.

Now remember that the illusion of movement is all in your brain, where it looks for something that resembled the instant before, and projects trajectory into your concious.

The only reason you’re able to reverse the flow of hotdogs is because they look so similar, and because it’s literally all in your head.

When you make yourself think the flow of hotdogs is going into this fine gentleman’s pants, you’re making yourself believe that, in one frame, hotdogX moves almost a whole hotdog length down, instead of only a little bit of a hotdog length up.

And because it’s almost a whole hotdog length down, in just one frame, the distance of the intervals along the hotdog’s trajectory increases, which means it travels more distance in the same amount of time. 

In that one instance of perceived reality (IPR)(Don’t use that anywhere serious, I just made that up), the hotdog moves 9 pixels, instead of 2 (approx.)(I’m not going to count them)

So, to summarize the answer to your question (aka TL:DR);

The reason why the ‘dogs fly into his pants faster is because your brain lag enables you to perceive motion through light  (it likes things that look the same).  And when things look the same, you can screw with your brain something hardcore. 
When you force your brain to see things at different intervals, it can change how you perceive them.

SCIENCE

(via edwardspoonhands)