#for those of you still here

[goomyloid]

The remorseful player

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

License to Kitty.

[night-orchids]

the fact that you can see the exact moment tears appear in his eyes

[thechekhov]

ah, childhood.

[ark-blocks]

Hey y'all remember these guys?

Well I decided to update their textures and animations :3c

⁽ᵃˡˢᵒ ᴵ ᶠᶦᵍᵘʳᵉᵈ ᵒᵘᵗ ʰᵒʷ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵃᵏᵉ ᵍᶦᶠˢ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ʷᵉʳᵉⁿᵗ ˡᶦᵏᵉ ⁶ ᶠʳᵃᵐᵉˢ ᶦⁿ ᵗᵒᵗᵃˡ ᵃⁿᵈ ᶜʳᵘⁿᶜʰʸ ᵃˢ ʰᵉˡˡ ʲᶠᶜ⁾

[kittyprincessofcats]

ICJ Ruling

Okay, let's get into this.

First of all, I get the frustration at the court not ordering a ceasefire. I was disappointed and frustrated at first too, since a ceasefire was the biggest and most important preliminary measure South Africa was requesting - and of course we just all want this horror to finally end for the people in Gaza. So I get the frustration and disappointment, I really do.

However, I do think this ruling is still a major win for South Africa, Palestine, and international law as a whole and here's why:

The court acknowledged that it has jurisdiction over this case and completely dismissed Israel's request to throw out the case as a whole. It will now determine at the merits stage (that will probably take years) whether Israel is actually commiting genocide.

The court acknowledged that Palestinians are a "distinct national or ethnic group and therefore deserving of protection under the genocide convention". Pull this out next time someone tells you "there's no such thing as Palestinians, they're all just Arabs".

The court acknowledged very unambiguously that "at least some" of Israel's actions being genocidal in nature is "plausible". South Africa has a case, officially. Israel is accused of genocide, in a way the ICJ deems "plausible", officially. This is huge. (And seriously, how freaking satisfying was it to hear all of those genocidal statements by Israeli politicians read out loud and used as justification for this rulling?)

The court might not have ordered a "ceasefire" in those words, but they did order Israel to "immediately end all genocidal acts" (which includes killing and injuring Palestinians) and submit proof that they actually did. How are they going to comply with this ruling without at least severly reducing or changing what they're doing in Gaza?

In fact, this wording might actually be more appropriate for a genocide (vs a war), as author and journalist Ali Abunimah notes on Twitter:

He's completely right. Israel lost today, by overwhelming majority (I mean, 15 to 2? I heard people predict the rulings would be very close, like 9 judges vs 8, but instead we got 15 to 2 (and even 16 to 1 on the humanitarian aid). Holy shit.) The court disimissed almost everything Israel's side of lawyers said, while acknowledging that South Africa's accusations are "plausible".

And this is important especially because of Mr Abunimah's second tweet there^. Because the question is, where do we go from here?

This ruling means that Israel is officially /possibly/ commiting genocide and that should have huge international consequences. The rest of the world now HAS to take these accusations seriously and stop arming and supporting Israel - and if they won't do it on their own, we, the people, have to make them. This is THE moment to rise up all around the world, especially in the countries most supportive of Israel (the US, the UK, Germany): Protest, call your representatives and demand a ceasefire and an end of arms deliveries to Israel.

We now have a legal case to back our demands: If Israel is, according to the ICJ, "plausibly" commiting genocide, then all of our governments are, according to the ICJ, "plausibly" guiltly of aiding in genocide. And we need to hold that over their heads and demand better. We need to do that right now and in huge numbers. Most politicians only care about themselves and saving their skin. We have to make them realize that they could be accused of aiding in genocide.

(As a German, I'm thinking of Germany here in particular: After South Africa's hearing, our government dismissed their case as having "no basis" - how are they going to keep saying that now that the ICJ officially thinks otherwise? Over the last months, people here have been arrested at protests for calling what's happening in Gaza a genocide. How are the police supposed to legally keep doing that now that the ICJ has officially deemed this accusation "plausible"? I used to be scared to use the word "genocide" at protests or write it on my protest signs - not anymore, have fun trying to arrest me for that when the ICJ literally has my back on this one 🖕🏻.)

So yeah - don't be defeatist about this, don't let Israel's narrative that they "won" (they didn't) take over. This might not be everything we wanted, but it's still a good result. Don't let what the court didn't say ("ceasefire"), distract you from the very important things that they did say. Let this be your motivation to get loud and active, especially if you live in any country that supports Israel. Put pressure on your governments to not be complicit in genocide, you now officially have the highest international court on your side.

[shikisei]

say your goodbyes to this year

[cacklefrendly]

*72-hour playtime voice* yeah this game's a'ight

[spitedemon]

i really don’t think it’s “typical dragon age fandom nonsense” for people to be genuinely upset about the world state choices. combat, level design, art direction, gameplay gimmicks, those have all varied across each dragon age game. the one thing that’s remained constant are nods to our previous choices.

i wasn’t expecting my HoF to come riding in on a griffon, but i can’t find a monument dedicated to warden tabris somewhere around the anderfels? lucanis couldn’t have some lines about the time that one arainai boy was stirring up trouble in antiva city? you’re gonna tell me that making a mage the new divine wouldn’t have some impact on nevarra and antiva? on the anderfels, the supposed most devout militant andrastian nation in thedas? you’re saying nobody in the north is paying attention to who rules orlais or ferelden? come on.

[marmastry]

🐙 Moomers final volume cover 🦑

I hope you look forward to the finale in May 15 🧎‍♀️‍➡️

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Hey now, Let her cook!

[lilislegacy]

One thing I’ve always found interesting is that Rick never really showed us the bridge between Percabeth being just friends to being in a serious relationship. A few little moments in The Staff of Hermes were the closest we got. Like, we see them say “I love you” to each other a few times throughout Heroes of Olympus, but it’s never implied that those were the first times they said it. Which means before TLH even starts, the two of them have gotten to that point. But In Staff of Hermes (which takes place a month into their relationship), they’re still in that slightly awkward phase of their relationship—you know, where they’re super into each other and obviously enjoying the perks of being a couple (aka making out), but haven’t quite settled into that groove of mature, comfortable romance yet. But by the time Percy gets kidnapped (just three months later), they clearly have found that groove, which is evident the second they reunite in MoA, because they’re totally at ease with each other, affectionate, and intimate in a way that supports the implication that those “I love you’s” I mentioned have already been exchanged. So it just makes me wonder when that shift happened? At what point in those three short months did they go from “I’m just happy we’re still together, honestly” to “I'm in love with you, and this is forever"?

Ugh, what I would give to see how they were right before Percy got kidnapped. Still holding on to a bit of that teenage casualness that disappeared during their 6 month separation, but also hopelessly in love and finally open and comfortable with it. URRGGGHHH!!!!

I love them.

[counting-stars-gayly]

harrow: I cannot conceive of a universe without you in it. *creates a reality in which gideon never existed so she doesn’t have to recognize her absence*

[technically-human]

Oh, Ivo. You are no Maria.

[raplinenthusiasts]

memories 📸

[uncanny-tranny]

This might seem like an "old man yells at cloud" situation, but it's just wild growing up and being told how dangerous distracted driving is - how, at highway speeds, you can traverse the length of a football field (100 yards, 91 meters) in a matter of seconds - how one split second sending a text while driving could result in a potential fatal crash, and then getting on the road as a driver and being surrounded by billboards. Their entire purpose is to catch one's attention, so they're lining major roads, which tend to be highways. How is it that you're told how important it is to never be distracted while driving, but still being advertised to?

At best, this type of advertising is an eyesore to pedestrians and motorists and a general waste of electricity to light it, and at worst, it is an active danger considering they are there to advertise and therefore, must catch people's attention.

I'm not even against advertising in theory, but this particular mode bothers me so much and I hate how pervasive it is - especially in large cities or highways.