titsay
AnasAbdin
Cosmic Funnies
Mike Driver
Sweet Seals For You, Always
d e v o n
★
roma★
izzy's playlists!
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
i don't do bad sauce passes
NASA
almost home
art blog(derogatory)
we're not kids anymore.
todays bird
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Kiana Khansmith
@theartofmadeline
$LAYYYTER
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania
seen from United States
seen from Iraq
seen from Germany
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Mexico
seen from Germany
seen from United Kingdom
seen from France
seen from Singapore
seen from Algeria
seen from Ukraine
seen from Netherlands
@dormroomwindow
insane the way these stories always ask is it worse to be betrayed by god or by your father. is it worse to be hurt by the devil or by your father. is it worse to be abandoned by the angels or by your father. but it doesn’t actually matter how you answer, because there is no god or devil or angels, it’s only your father in disguise, and even if they were real, they wouldn’t save you anyways
The piece was nearing publication when the journal decided against publishing it. You can read the article here.
In a statement that was shared with The Nation, a group of 25 HLR editors expressed their concerns about the decision. “At a time when the Law Review was facing a public intimidation and harassment campaign, the journal’s leadership intervened to stop publication,” they wrote. “The body of editors—none of whom are Palestinian—voted to sustain that decision. We are unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way. “ When asked for comment, the leadership of the Harvard Law Review referred The Nation to a message posted on the journal’s website. “Like every academic journal, the Harvard Law Review has rigorous editorial processes governing how it solicits, evaluates, and determines when and whether to publish a piece…” the note began. ”Last week, the full body met and deliberated over whether to publish a particular Blog piece that had been solicited by two editors. A substantial majority voted not to proceed with publication.” Today, The Nation is sharing the piece that the Harvard Law Review refused to run. Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial. When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians. But naming injustice is crucial to claiming justice. If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics. The UN Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide as certain acts “committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” These acts include “killing members of a protected group” or “causing serious bodily or mental harm” or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Numerous statements made by top Israeli politicians affirm their intentions. There is a forming consensus among leading scholars in the field of genocide studies that “these statements could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent,” as Omer Bartov, an authority in the field, writes. More importantly, genocide is the material reality of Palestinians in Gaza: an entrapped, displaced, starved, water-deprived population of 2.3 million facing massive bombardments and a carnage in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Over 11,000 people have already been killed. That is one person out of every 200 people in Gaza. Tens of thousands are injured, and over 45% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed. The United Nations Secretary General said that Gaza is becoming a “graveyard for children,” but a cessation of the carnage—a ceasefire—remains elusive. Israel continues to blatantly violate international law: dropping white phosphorus from the sky, dispersing death in all directions, shedding blood, shelling neighborhoods, striking schools, hospitals, and universities, bombing churches and mosques, wiping out families, and ethnically cleansing an entire region in both callous and systemic manner. What do you call this? The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a thorough, 44-page, factual and legal analysis, asserting that “there is a plausible and credible case that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza.” Raz Segal, a historian of the Holocaust and genocide studies, calls the situation in Gaza “a textbook case of Genocide unfolding in front of our eyes.”
Just for context the Harvard Law Review is notorious for letting almost anything fly, and has a non-attribution policy, positing everything they publish as student opinion:
U.S. Senator Brian E. Schatz (D-Hawaii) quote tweeted the article with an ominous warning: “The road to autocracy is paved by fancy lawyers.
riley + being whipped by maya [maya’s version]
“I’m sorry that I love you like this”
the social network / virginia woolf / lizzy mcalpine - “just because” / mac and KJ - paper girls) / ross gay (quietvoiced) / richard siken / brokeback mountain / moonlight / salma deera / pablo neruda / the social network / louise o’neill - only ever yours
i think they should make more movies about real people but making them gay against their will. i think andrew garfield is a pioneer for what he did to real billionaire eduardo saverin
that defines you as company property
babygirl is a beautiful name for a bloody traumatized man
hey. do any of you trans/autistic mfs wanna see a baby werewolf
well if you insist
gecgecgec (remix) ft. lil west and tony velour - 100 gecs / the social network (2010) dir. david fincher
"The final exam was a week away and he was in a panic. It’s one thing to drop out of Harvard to start a gigantic, world-changing company; it’s another to flunk."
new slang by the shins
they're a 10 but they're obsessed with the cw's supernatural
samruby 1.0 vs. samruby 2.0
Vienna (Joel) x The Social Network (Fincher)
Have been doing some thinking and…
Mark knows that Eduardo loves him,
I mean Eduardo proves it time and time again. He caves into Marks requests so quickly,
The algorithm, the cash for Facebook, cash for California etc. even on smaller ways, the way he sticks around even when Mark is fucking them over (post the ad board meeting, when they meet the first investors, meeting with Sean Parker etc). Eduardo knows that Mark struggles with human interaction and he can sympathize with that, Mark feels secure knowing that Eduardo understands that But.. BUT Eduardo doesn’t know how Mark feels about him.
He sees them as friends, of course, but best friends? He doesn’t know that Mark saw him in that way until it doesn’t matter anymore (depositions, he’s already suing him so he chocks up the best friends thing to trying to make Mark more sympathetic).
Eduardo thinks that Mark used him when he reads the papers, everything flashing through his mind is every action that Mark has done where he asked for something from Eduardo. His shares being diluted? What a shit show, Mark didn’t want him to come out to celebrate, he wanted him to come out so Eduardo could get fucked over. That’s how he sees his and Marks relationship in the end.
Of course, there was a point where he knew Mark appreciated him, in his own way. But never to the extent that Mark actually did. The love and appreciation and care that Mark held for him, he never saw it. Which makes the entire laptop smashing, hallway and the phone call by the pool scenes so much worse, because Mark is trying /TRYING/ to express to how much he cares and needs Eduardo and then in the laptop smashing how Eduardo didn’t listen to his pleas.
TLDR;
They both had so much love for each other but Mark didn’t know how to express or acknowledge it and Eduardo only knew how to express it in terms of financial support & encouragement.
it's too bad smoking is expensive and bad for you and everyone around you because we will never be able to replace the specific intimacy of lighting someone else's cigarette for them
