they kith.
this is all i want telltale IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK???
(this is a redraw btw)

roma★
Today's Document
ojovivo

Origami Around

Kaledo Art
Stranger Things

No title available

@theartofmadeline
AnasAbdin

Discoholic 🪩

No title available

titsay
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
d e v o n
sheepfilms
occasionally subtle
noise dept.
No title available

No title available
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

seen from Canada

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United Arab Emirates

seen from United States
seen from Indonesia

seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Japan

seen from Maldives
@terranovathemust
they kith.
this is all i want telltale IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK???
(this is a redraw btw)
this situation is really scary
I can't be happy about this news.
And someone might ask me: “But how? The proposal was rejected, isn't that a good thing?”
The point is another, much more disturbing, and I say this in cruder, more direct terms. A group of Republican politicians introduced a law threatening a massacre of women, as a move to discourage abortion. We're not talking about a provocation, a slogan, no, none of that. We're talking about a formal legislative proposal. And the only consequence was… that the proposal was rejected.
How can one be relieved, happy, before a political system in which such an idea can be deposited by politicians, without producing immediate consequences for those who promoted it?
If a political party in a European Union country proposed something similar, the repercussions would be devastating. Not just politically, but criminally.
In many European systems would happen this:
Violation of constitutional principles: A proposal that provides for the death penalty for non-criminal behavior would violate the supreme principles of the Constitution. In Italy, for example, Article 2 protects the inviolable rights of the person and Article 27 prohibits the death penalty.
Dissolution of the party: A political program that promotes the suppression of fundamental rights can lead to the dissolution of the party. Again in Italy, The Scelba Law (L. 645/1952) sanctions those who promote violent or anti-democratic methods.
Personal criminal liability: Promoters and leaders could be investigated for crimes such as:
Incitement to crime (Art. 414 of the Criminal Code), because proposing the killing of people constitutes incitement to murder.
Apology for crime or justification of crime, if the proposal extols practices that are violent or contrary to human rights.
Incitement to violence or hatred, if the measure affects a specific group or minority. In this case, women.
In Europe, such a proposal would be considered self-destructive for the political party proposing it. In the United States, however, it can be discussed, presented, and rejected without the promoters suffering political or legal consequences.
And this is precisely the point that worries me: how is it possible for a political system to tolerate the propose of measures that, in other democratic contexts, would be considered a direct threat to fundamental rights?
Why is there not a stronger institutional reaction?
Why is there no talk of political responsibility for those who propose bills that, if approved, would have such extreme effects?
It's not a question of being “happy” because the proposal was rejected.
It is a question of asking how it was possible to get to the point of having to reject it.
copy files in The Walking Dead - Definitive Series/Archives
I'm happy to introduce you to my new mod. Today you'll have the chance to play season two from a new, scary, and dark perspective: that of a zombified Clementine. I hope you like this mod.
I would like to point out that in the scene where Clem stitches the wound on her left arm, the view does not work well and Clem's original arm appears. I still haven't been able to fix that scene. Since it's at the end of the first episode, you can easily start the second episode; you won't miss a thing. If there is any experienced modder or developer who knows how to fix that scene I would gladly accept their help.
he's a teddy bear 🧸
Why does this political video look like a video game… and why it worries me
Guys, this is the video that gamifies the war posted on the white house's official account on X. It's not just bad taste, it's propaganda. The American government's goal is to normalize the war by exploiting the social and video game aesthetic, making it light and playful.
Thus, it alters people's perceptions, making them insensitive to such devastation. This erodes, indeed destroys, the culture of nonviolence, and therefore those in government will no longer have opposition to it. If people are insensitive, the government will be able to impose its unfiltered, forceless worldview, because citizens already accept it.
With insensitivity, you reduce resistance to conflict, making it the primary solution to problems. This makes war, in people's eyes, the only viable way to change a problematic situation. It's frightening. Think about it, this way they facilitate the recruitment of young people who, subjected to such propaganda on TV and social media, will associate real war with video games.
Young people are easily manipulated and therefore risk dehumanizing the enemy, losing empathy for their victims, who will become merely a digital target transposed into reality. It's a very serious manipulation of the narrative by Trump's staff, gradually shifting the bar toward authoritarianism, but not the classic authoritarianism we've become accustomed to in the past, but a more subtle and manipulative version. This is dangerous, and I'm deeply disgusted.
I'm curious to know what you think.
Killing a dictator doesn't change a regime: why do we continue to ignore it?
I know, this post isn't strictly about american politics, but is intended as a sort of outlet against those people who justify the actions of individuals or groups, based on the fact that a bad person has been eliminated. I'm the first to appear happy over the death of an authority figure, who violently enslaves and mistreats his own people But I think it's time to examine the broader picture, without dwelling on "a dictator died, so the bombing is right." And I also apologize for the wall of text, but this topic is often little discussed and belittled.
Foreign interference in a nation rarely leads to the collapse of an authoritarian regime, in favor of democracy. We demonstrated this first in Venezuela with the kidnapping of Maduro and then in Iran yesterday with the death of Khamenei. Of course, they are no longer in power, they no longer do harm, but their regime is still standing and they have been replaced by their loyal number two. Killing a leader isn't enough to change a country's political structure. Nations' political structures are based not only on individuality, but on institutions, loyalty, interests, fears, and internal and external balances. So it's childish to reduce all the complexity to "that's the bad guy to take down."
And when external intervention accelerates a leader's downfall, it often only reinforces their sense of siege, legitimizing successors to further rigidify the system. Furthermore, many ignore that when a regime survives the leader's death, it often emerges more united, because the transition will be managed internally, without popular pressure, without an open political process, without a credible alternative. The result is a new authoritarianism, even more structured. Therefore, the focus should not be on the death of the villain on duty, but on what changes for those who live there, because if the apparatus remains, so does repression.
Secondly, I would like to emphasize military foreign interference, because many downplay its burden as future consequences, but above all, normalize the use of force as a foreign policy instrument. International law exists so that the strongest nations do not implement a kind of social Darwinism, in which the weakest is oppressed, colonized, and enslaved. The Trump of the moment, acting in this way, It weakens this set of international rules, because it shows he can invade without real consequences. The beauty is that he hasn't hidden his interests. Remember the oil target in Venezuela? First you had Putin inventing Ukrainian Nazism, to have a casus belli, now with Trump, there's no need anymore. Do you want oil? if or takes, does it want to increase its influence over a territory? He conquers it by shedding the blood of opposing citizens and soldiers. He knows he will suffer no consequences.
and now, this is done by the leader of a theoretically democratic country, but one day? if authoritarian China decided that it wanted to gain dominion over a territory at all costs? Maybe we could end up under bombing and there will be no problem justifying ourselves, finding a reason, since it won't suffer consequences (especially if we isolate ourselves from the NATO alliance as many citizens would like). This is why normalizing rhetoric is not good; it's not only childish, but also dangerous, because it allows us to ignore the material consequences of actions, to avoid serious analysis, to transform politics into Hollywood storytelling. But the reality is that when a missile falls, it doesn't hit a movie character, but it hits real people, real buildings, destroying services, relationships, lives, and thus creating tragedies, and many forget that.
Furthermore, those who support these events often fail to understand that stability is not created through a vacuum. Eliminating a leader without a credible political process, an organized opposition, and a context ready for political transition does not produce democracy, but it does produce chaos. And chaos, stroically, is fertile ground for authoritarianism, militias, warlords, or external powers who want to exploit the place for personal gain. and there is also a factor of political imbalance and asymmetry, because the narrative of the strongest nation dominates the global discourse, so the nuances, the internal voices of the country, the local dynamics, are crushed by a simplified narrative, which serves geopolitical interests more than an understanding of the context and the situation. and so we end up celebrating events, which do not represent any liberation for those who live in those places, but rather will only be the beginning of a new cycle of fears and uncertainties.
A democracy doesn't need sheriffs who talk like they're in an action movie. He needs public officials who respect the law, not make it a threat.
When a state representative claims that anyone who commits violent acts during a protest will be “killed” or “killed dead instantly”, he is not defending public order, he is normalizing the idea that lethal force is an automatic, almost desirable response.
This is dangerous, because the law doesn't work that way. The use of lethal force is permitted only in the presence of an immediate and concrete threat to life, not as a rhetorical deterrent or as a generalized warning to the population. A public official should remember that his or her role is not to intimidate citizens, but to ensure that their rights, including the right to protest, are protected.
Security is not built with bombastic phrases or the promise of “filling cemeteries”, but with professionalism, proportionality, and responsibility.
Words matter, especially when they come from someone who wears a badge. And language that evokes death as a first option is not force: it is a renunciation of the institutional duty to remain calm, protect the community, and apply the law fairly.
my brother is a person, before anything else
There is one thing I will never stop repeating: my brother is not an ideology, it is not a “social experiment” and it is not even a topic for debate. He's a person. Point. And when someone attacks him just because he's trans, he's not defending truth or science - he's just defending his own biases.
Science is not corrupt because it recognizes transgender people. Science is made up of data, of studies, of observations that seek to understand the complexity of the human being. Saying that it is “corrupt” only because it does not confirm what you already think is not a critical spirit: it is fear disguised as certainty.
And then, let's be clear: real corruption is not in laboratories or scientific articles, but in the way certain people use words to dehumanize others. It's easy to shout “science lies” when in reality you don't have the courage to look those in front of you in the face and recognize their dignity.
My brother is not a problem to solve. He is a boy who lives with courage, who faces a world every day that often judges him before even knowing him. And this, if you think about it, is an act of force that many will never have.
Defending transgender people does not mean doing one “category” a favor: it means defending everyone's freedom. Because every time you take away someone's dignity, you restrict the space of freedom for anyone.
So yes, we can discuss science, studies, data. But first of all let's remember that we are talking about people. And people don't delete themselves with an insult or an online post.
Rant: The dictatorship of the complicated
There’s an obsession that seems to have taken over gaming discourse: the belief that more complex = more valuable. If a game doesn’t force you to manage endless inventories, labyrinthine skill trees, and crafting systems that look like engineering manuals, then it’s not “real gaming.” And if you enjoy more straightforward experiences, you’re “boring.”
But just look at titles like Bye Sweet Carole, Valiant Hearts, The Walking Dead: The Game, or 60 Seconds! to see how narrow this view really is. These games don’t rely on mechanical complexity but on narrative strength, atmosphere, and emotional impact. They don’t ask you to study an encyclopedia of rules; they put you in front of moral choices, unforgettable characters, and stories that stay with you.
The same obsession shows up with graphics. How often do you hear: “Well, it’s not in 4K photorealism, so it doesn’t count”? As if technical horsepower were the only measure of worth. Yet Valiant Hearts, with its comic-book style, or Bye Sweet Carole, with its dark Disney-like animation, prove that visuals don’t need to be hyper-realistic to hit hard. Often it’s the style, the artistic choice, that makes a game unforgettable.
The problem is that a toxic hierarchy has formed: on one side, the “purists” who worship ultra-complex systems and ultra-pumped graphics as the only true form of video game art; on the other, those who appreciate more narrative-driven, immediate, or stylized experiences, dismissed as “casual.” But video games aren’t a contest to see who suffers the most to learn the mechanics, nor a race to cram the most polygons on screen. They’re a medium, and as such they have infinite forms of expression.
The truth is that depth isn’t measured in clicks or pixels. Depth lies in a game’s ability to leave something inside you: an emotion, a reflection, a memory. TWDG breaks your heart with Clementine and Lee. 60 Seconds! makes you laugh and despair at the same time as you decide who gets to eat. Valiant Hearts moves you with a dog in the trenches. Bye Sweet Carole unsettles you with its dark fairytale aesthetic.
So yes, go ahead and keep worshipping your ultra-complex systems and ultra-realistic graphics as if they’re the only form of “real gaming.” Meanwhile, I’ll enjoy the freedom of choosing games that don’t treat me like an accountant on the verge of a breakdown, and that don’t need 200 hours of grinding or 8K HDR to stay in my heart.
what do you think about this, guys?
Mariù: Surviving the frost
hey, sono tornato con il quarto capitolo della mia fanfic. I apologize for not continuing this fanfic in the past. I will try to be more constant. I hope you open up what I said. a huge thank you to those who read. don't worry, if you have any criticism or advice, write to me immediately, I am always available to listen.
Mariù - Chapter 4 - The_walking_ghiottone_99 - The Walking Dead (Telltale Video Game) [Archive of Our Own]
Mariù - Chapter 4: Surviving the frost - Wattpad
doctor Who: A New Story adventure continues...
here I am again, I have published the third chapter of my fanfic. Doctor Who: A New Story. the story of our two heroes continues and I hope you can have fun reading it. as always, thanks in advance to whoever reads it.
Doctor Who: a new story - Chapter 3 - The_walking_ghiottone_99 - Doctor Who [Archive of Our Own]
Doctor Who: a new story - THE SHADOW OF HEAT - Wattpad
Doctor Who: a new story (The Mirror Maze)
I'm happy to announce the second chapter of my fanfiction. I can't wait for you to read it. I know my chapters aren't very long, but I hope you can still appreciate them. I try to do my best, I hope you like the result. ❤️❤️
Doctor Who: a new story - Chapter 2 - The_walking_ghiottone_99 - Doctor Who [Archive of Our Own]
Doctor Who: a new story - THE MIRROR MAZE - Wattpad
Doctor Who: a new story
hello everyone. today, I want to make my contribution to the community with one of my Fanfic. this story is my personal continuation of the story of doctor who. I hope you appreciate it.
Doctor Who: a new story - THE GLASS ECHO - Wattpad
Doctor Who: a new story - The_walking_ghiottone_99 - Doctor Who [Archive of Our Own]
Read Chapter 1: a day in the mountains from the story Mariù by ghiottonewobble99 (fagiano dorato) with 1 reads. horror...
https://archiveofourown.org/works/62075272/chapters/168521521
Here I am again with my horror zombie Fanfic. Mariù. this is the third chapter, I enjoyed writing it and hope you like it. humbly apologize if I have not published for months, I was a little lazy. I wish you good reading. I leave you the links of Ao3 and Wattpad.
ps: no more post on fanfiction. net, I do not like as a site, too many scammers and it takes forever to load a chapter.
man, i love so much this game
Here it is, the Tardis Coral @timeisweird
man, i love so much this game
heyy
hello to you too 💛