u/RayWencube

I recently made a Trostani deck and starting to think im ready to play Cali commander. The 4+ player EDH is starting to be annoying. All colors have a weakness and I would say of all two color combinations Selesnya is the strongest. Commander is heavy life gain and life total to make combos work. Without 17 token makers in a deck Selesnya lacks any power. And by token makers I mean good ones that are $20 each.

I beleive TWO burn instants and TWO burn sorceries.

I swear if reality fracture doesn't fix any of this I might just give up on WoTC and play One piece or lorcana. They seem fun

TLDR; me and my wife like the name, but idk if it would be something that she could get made fun of, or have to deal with negative things because of the name though out her life. thoughts?

So we got a daughter on the way, and i said it as kind of a throw away comment that we should name our daughter Slimefoot, but she actaully really, really likes it. I dont think it sounds bad at all, and she wants us to name her that because we bonded and met through MTG, so she thought it would be a good idea to name her after something that not only something we love, but something that represents our love. She also brought up Kenrith, the Returned King as a second option. i was just hesitant because the name doesnt have any history or meaning (not like it doesnt have any emotional meaning, but literally. like you know how some names will mean "bringer of light" or w/e the heck, you get what i mean) and i just dont know if its a name that a child would get made fun of. or if she asks what her name means as she grows up, and thats what tell her, would she be upset? im trying to think about how her life would be outside of us, and i think im too bias. so as people who play the game, what would you think if you met someone names Slimefoot in the wild, and would it even be a big deal to people who know nothing about the game? and if you think the idea is a good thought, what other names would be a better idea?

From the abstract

"While perpetrators of anti-Jewish harassment and violence are a small minority in democratic societies, they rely on a larger number of people who justify such aggression or silently condone it. Using data from nationally representative surveys of the Norwegian population, I report two studies investigating whether endorsement of Holocaust inversion—the belief that Israel treats Palestinians as badly as Jews were treated during World War II—is associated with (a) justification of harassment and violence against Jews and (b) refusal to take a stance against such aggression. Study 1 (N = 1,575) found support for both hypotheses. In a preregistered replication, Study 2 (N = 1,653) confirmed these results. Follow-up analyses found that endorsement of Holocaust inversion was also associated with refusal to answer questions measuring blatant antisemitic prejudice. The findings support theorizing that sees Holocaust inversion as a socially more acceptable vehicle for expressing and legitimizing antisemitic hostility."

This is the first of several research papers I intend to be posting about antisemitism. These papers I think are invaluable in giving a more detailed insight into antisemitism. Furthermore since this sub is debating it I think that reading the first part of this paper which goes into some of the literature about it is super helpful.

Now the author warns against generalization and i concur. But i think this paper still should spark some interesting discussion.

PLease read this paper first

From its conclusion

"Drawing on social psychological insights that see perpetrators of outgroup aggression as morally motivated, that is, acting based on expectations that others will justify or at least silently condone their acts (Fiske & Rai, 2015), as well as theoretical and empirical accounts that suggest Holocaust inversion functions as a norm-compatible outlet for expressing anti-Jewish hostility (Haury, 2025; Hirsh, 2018; Tabarovsky, 2022), I hypothesized that endorsement of Holocaust inversion would be associated with justification of aggression against Jews and refusal to take a stance against such acts. Across two studies based on nationally representative surveys conducted 5 years apart in Norway, findings provide evidence that people endorsing Holocaust inversion beliefs are more likely to justify harassment and violence against Jews and refuse taking a stance against such acts. Compared with those who rejected Holocaust inversion, people who endorsed it were approximately nine to 12 times more likely to justify aggression and three times more likely to refuse answering the question.

Although respondents who justify aggression remain a minority, the fact that roughly one in eight adults in a nationally representative sample affirms that such aggression can be defended indicates that these attitudes are practically, not just statistically, significant. Follow-up analyses further revealed that people with stronger Holocaust inversion beliefs were more likely to select impossible to answer when faced with questions designed to measure blatant antisemitic prejudice (e.g., “the Jews largely have themselves to blame for being persecuted”). Taken together, these findings support the notion that Holocaust inversion does not just reflect strong political views about the Israel–Palestine conflict but can function as a socially acceptable vehicle for expressing anti-Jewish hostility. Overall, results indicate that Holocaust inversion beliefs are associated with a more permissive stance toward antiJewish aggression.

With such beliefs endorsed by a third or more of the general population, they appear to have attained substantial normative acceptance in parts of the Norwegian public. This is cause for considerable concern because research on the psychology of intergroup conflict stresses the key role of normative climates in fueling or constraining outgroup aggression (Crandall et al., 2002; Fiske & Rai, 2015; Lickel et al., 2006; Saguy & Reifen-Tagar, 2022). Social norms provide information to potential aggressors about whether they can expect others to justify or condone their acts, thereby influencing the threshold for expressing prejudice and engaging in hostile behavior. To the extent that Holocaust inversion beliefs are widespread and normatively accepted, they may contribute to a climate in which antiJewish aggression is more readily tolerated"

Hello!

I know all of these watches are sourced from the same factories, so I understand they're all probably similar quality.

I'm looking for a 36mm watch I can wear on a rubber strap in the pool and on a leather strap when I'm at work. I'm down to the following three (which is to say the only three I'm aware of that are both GADA-styled and 36mm, so I'm open to other suggestions):

The Traska Commuter in blue, the Erebus Ascent in white, and the Christopher Ward Sealander in white.

I know I'm barking up the wrong tree if this matters to me, but I'm constrained by price, so here goes: I'm trying to avoid feeling like I've paid a premium for something that an Ali Express brand can put together for $300.

On aesthetics alone, the Ascent appeals most to me. Based on what I've read, Traska appeals to me on build quality. From an "original design" perspective, Christopher Ward wins (but is also, you know, 2x-3x the price).

Has anyone here handled these three (or even a pair of two)? I'm trying to find out if the difference in build quality and subjective "feel" of the watches differ. I'm also interested in any insight anyone has into how well they are manufactured. I'd like to avoid buying a watch where the brand owner dialed up a factory somewhere, gave a vague description of what they wanted, and let the factory do all the design heavy lifting.

I'm also a bit put off by how 1:1 the Traska case shape and indices/handset is to the Rolex OP, so if anyone has any copium they could spare on that front it would be greatly appreciated.

We’ve collectively noticed the sudden disappearance of both the base model and the original GMT C63 Sealander. The consensus seems to be that a model-line refresh is imminent.

Someone in another thread said that CW posted and then quickly deleted an image of the new model. They recalled the new model appears to have a framed date window and ditches the trident second hand.

Have any of you all seen that, and can you recall any obvious changes? Does anyone here have any other particular insight into what might change?

I was about to buy one when they disappeared, so now I’m sat here like a clown checking the website every few hours. :(