#Specifically Inertia

[a-crow-with-rights-and-anxiety]

Girl help I'm getting music video ideas outside of my creative abilities

[howlsnteeth]

an object in motion, don't ask where I'm going 'cause where I am going, is right where I am

[aletterinthenameofsanity]

Sometimes you just have to listen to the live version of a song and feel like you're ascending to godhood...

[pastelcrow]

[rainbow-arrow]

I'm stuck in this life, and I'm stuck in these pants.

AJR, Inertia

[sewer-rat0]

Traditional art speedster dump

[brown-little-robin]

It's emo over Thad Thawne hours. Have some nutrient womb edits

[soft-serve-soymilk]

help I’ve started listening to my chemical romance 😭

[fand0mswithbunny]

was scrolling through r/battlebots and fell into a [REDACTED] (Vertigo) rabbit hole and I think I do have an idea on who they could be but im afraid ill overthink it/sound like a conspiracy theorist LMAO so i might make a fun theory post here eventually.

[pocketramblr]

I like to think of 3rd as a former bodyguard of All for One, maybe he wasn't born with a quirk too. Maybe he received one from All for One and dedicated himself to serving him as a result only to come to his senses later on.

There was a bit of time when I thought that the ponytailed masked bodyguard of AfO was going to turn out to be the same as the pineapple silhouette one, (the indents on one's mask being similar to the shape the other's headband made from the side) and that like, he put his hair up when he changed sides and wore slightly new clothes and that he was the one to either get Yoichi out of that vault or pass information onto Second so he could get him out. But then we got more clear shots of Third with lighter hair and it seemed more likely Giga was the fate of the bodyguard... But I'll always have a fondness for former AfO guard Third. Perhaps his turning is why Yoichi is glad to see Izuku trying to save Tenko, perhaps that's why Third kept away from Izuku, shame or sure that he'd fail because at least Third was an adult at the time, and what hope do they really have, and why drag the kid in further... Love that plus I think we really should have more former villains in the OfA lineup

[protect-namine]

I get so stressed out whenever my clothes aren't folded and ironed and just lying in a haphazard pile on the floor, but I also for the life of me CANNOT bring myself to fold and iron them. everyone has that one chore they hate doing over all the others, and this is mine

[cuddlebugmonster]

I present to you Luna Mikey ! From my apocalyptic AU Butterfly Effect !

This has been a little side project that i have been wanting to draw for so long !!!

Whenever i would see others draw peepaw apocalyptic Mikey, they would usually associate his magic with butterflies, materializing them for Casey or just in general

I wanted to play with that concept and make my own ! So yeah ! Born from love and in 2hours with AJR Inertia blasting on loop, this sketch and now full blown mystic warrior was born !

I have a whole story i would love to make, i already have the ending fully ready in my head.

When I was making this design i didn’t initially think about a specific butterfly, but when I drew the dread tails and it made me think of the Luna moth ! So I got curious and did some research, and HOLY SHIT i have never been so happy with results in my life !

YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT THIS DOESN’T JUST SCREAM MIKEY !! it’s so perfect ! It fits so perfectly ! I swear I’m not crazy !!! It’s just AH ! It JUST.MAKES.SENSE !

I rest my case

Next

[hellenhighwater]

How do you stay creative while working full time? :)

I don't know, I just do stuff. Not art stuff, really! I think sometimes that I have to maintain a base minimum of Stuff Going On to stay above the gravity well of Comfy Bed All the Time No Need To Get Up And Do Things. There's an inertia to stuff, you know? Sometimes when you're busy it's easier to just maintain the momentum of getting things done. I don't always get stuff done as quickly as I'd like--the fact that I'm doing stuff all the time doesn't mean that the stuff I'm doing is necessarily productive. That's a good thing, though, because creativity has to be fueled from somewhere. There's got to be non-creative time for that part of the brain to recharge and rest, so it's not bad to have a job that doesn't demand that kind of thinking.

I did a lot this weekend and almost none of it was creatively productive in a normal sense. I got some pottery done on saturday morning, and then met a friend for sushi, went to my dad's to sandblast and powdercoat car parts and got a milkshake, went for a walk in the woods to pick tiny flowers, met my brother for dinner, and played DnD until midnight before driving back home. Today I planted hydrangea, hauled flagstone into place, dug up grass and tilled it over, and put mulch down. I made a roast for lunch and played DnD in my other campaign for a few hours, then started mixing down the clay slurry into slip for casting, which has to rest for the next 24 hours. In a little while, a friend and I are going to do an online movie marathon, and tomorrow--monday--I've got a board game night after work. Then the next week is pottery tues/thurs/saturday, dinner with my other brother and his wife on wednesday, DnD friday and sunday again.

You know what all of those little appointments with friends do? Force me to manage my time well. Force me to stay on and not just let the day get away from me. I rest when I need to but I also put really concerted effort in to spending time doing stuff that I enjoy.

People often say that they create art from a specific emotion, but to me, in order to make art, to make art sustainably, you have to be happy enough to want to put new things in the world. They don't have to be happy things. But you have to be in the world to reflect it out. Sometimes that's work. Sometimes that's friends.

Work on joy; the art will follow. That's just what's true for me.

[ahaura]

Title & subtitle:

[Nov. 21] The Harvard Law Review Refused to Run This Piece About Genocide in Gaza: The piece was nearing publication when the journal decided against publishing it. You can read the article here.

Article text:

On Saturday, the board of the Harvard Law Review voted not to publish “The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine,” a piece by Rabea Eghbariah, a human rights attorney completing his doctoral studies at Harvard Law School. The vote followed what an editor at the law reviewdescribed in an e-mail to Eghbariah as “an unprecedented decision” by the leadership of the Harvard Law Review to prevent the piece’s publication.

Eghbariah told The Nation that the piece, which was intended for the HLR Blog, had been solicited by two of the journal’s online editors. It would have been the first piece written by a Palestinian scholar for the law review. The piece went through several rounds of edits, but before it was set to be published, the president stepped in. “The discussion did not involve any substantive or technical aspects of your piece,” online editor Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, wrote Eghbariah in an e-mail shared with The Nation. “Rather, the discussion revolved around concerns about editors who might oppose or be offended by the piece, as well as concerns that the piece might provoke a reaction from members of the public who might in turn harass, dox, or otherwise attempt to intimidate our editors, staff, and HLR leadership.”

On Saturday, following several days of debate and a nearly six-hour meeting, the Harvard Law Review’s full editorial body came together to vote on whether to publish the article. Sixty-three percent voted against publication. In an e-mail to Egbariah, HLR President Apsara Iyer wrote, “While this decision may reflect several factors specific to individual editors, it was not brd on your identity or viewpoint.”

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.

enocide is a crime. It is a legal framework. It is unfolding in Gaza. And yet, the inertia of legal academia, especially in the United States, has been chilling. Clearly, it is much easier to dissect the case law rather than navigate the reality of death. It is much easier to consider genocide in the past tense rather than contend with it in the present. Legal scholars tend to sharpen their pens after the smell of death has dissipated and moral clarity is no longer urgent.

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.” The inaugural chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, notes that “Just the blockade of Gaza—just that—could be genocide under Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, meaning they are creating conditions to destroy a group.” A group of over 800 academics and practitioners, including leading scholars in the fields of international law and genocide studies, warn of “a serious risk of genocide being committed in the Gaza Strip.” A group of seven UN Special Rapporteurs has alerted to the “risk of genocide against the Palestinian people” and reiterated that they “remain convinced that the Palestinian people are at grave risk of genocide.” Thirty-six UN experts now call the situation in Gaza “a genocide in the making.” How many other authorities should I cite? How many hyperlinks are enough?

And yet, leading law schools and legal scholars in the United States still fashion their silence as impartiality and their denial as nuance. Is genocide really the crime of all crimes if it is committed by Western allies against non-Western people?

This is the most important question that Palestine continues to pose to the international legal order. Palestine brings to legal analysis an unmasking force: It unveils and reminds us of the ongoing colonial condition that underpins Western legal institutions. In Palestine, there are two categories: mournable civilians and savage human-animals. Palestine helps us rediscover that these categories remain racialized along colonial lines in the 21st century: the first is reserved for Israelis, the latter for Palestinians. As Isaac Herzog, Israel’s supposed liberal President, asserts: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true.”

Palestinians simply cannot be innocent. They are innately guilty; potential “terrorists” to be “neutralized” or, at best, “human shields” obliterated as “collateral damage”. There is no number of Palestinian bodies that can move Western governments and institutions to “unequivocally condemn” Israel, let alone act in the present tense. When contrasted with Jewish-Israeli life—the ultimate victims of European genocidal ideologies—Palestinians stand no chance at humanization. Palestinians are rendered the contemporary “savages” of the international legal order, and Palestine becomes the frontier where the West redraws its discourse of civility and strips its domination in the most material way. Palestine is where genocide can be performed as a fight of “the civilized world” against the “enemies of civilization itself.” Indeed, a fight between the “children of light” versus the “children of darkness.”

The genocidal war waged against the people of Gaza since Hamas’s excruciating October 7th attacks against Israelis—attacks which amount to war crimes—has been the deadliest manifestation of Israeli colonial policies against Palestinians in decades. Some have long ago analyzed Israeli policies in Palestine through the lens of genocide. While the term genocide may have its own limitations to describe the Palestinian past, the Palestinian present was clearly preceded by a “politicide”: the extermination of the Palestinian body politic in Palestine, namely, the systematic eradication of the Palestinian ability to maintain an organized political community as a group.

This process of erasure has spanned over a hundred years through a combination of massacres, ethnic cleansing, dispossession, and the fragmentation of the remaining Palestinians into distinctive legal tiers with diverging material interests. Despite the partial success of this politicide—and the continued prevention of a political body that represents all Palestinians—the Palestinian political identity has endured. Across the besieged Gaza Strip, the occupied West Bank, Jerusalem, Israel’s 1948 territories, refugee camps, and diasporic communities, Palestinian nationalism lives.

What do we call this condition? How do we name this collective existence under a system of forced fragmentation and cruel domination? The human rights community has largely adopted a combination of occupation and apartheid to understand the situation in Palestine. Apartheid is a crime. It is a legal framework. It is committed in Palestine. And even though there is a consensus among the human rights community that Israel is perpetrating apartheid, the refusal of Western governments to come to terms with this material reality of Palestinians is revealing.

Once again, Palestine brings a special uncovering force to the discourse. It reveals how otherwise credible institutions, such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, are no longer to be trusted. It shows how facts become disputable in a Trumpist fashion by liberals such as President Biden. Palestine allows us to see the line that bifurcates the binaries (e.g. trusted/untrusted) as much as it underscores the collapse of dichotomies (e.g. democrat/republican or fact/claim). It is in this liminal space that Palestine exists and continues to defy the distinction itself. It is the exception that reveals the rule and the subtext that is, in fact, the text: Palestine is the most vivid manifestation of the colonial condition upheld in the 21st century.

hat do you call this ongoing colonial condition? Just as the Holocaust introduced the term “Genocide” into the global and legal consciousness, the South African experience brought “Apartheid” into the global and legal lexicon. It is due to the work and sacrifice of far too many lives that genocide and apartheid have globalized, transcending these historical calamities. These terms became legal frameworks, crimes enshrined in international law, with the hope that their recognition will prevent their repetition. But in the process of abstraction, globalization, and readaptation, something was lost. Is it the affinity between the particular experience and the universalized abstraction of the crime that makes Palestine resistant to existing definitions?

Scholars have increasingly turned to settler-colonialism as the lens through which we assess Palestine. Settler-colonialism is a structure of erasure where the settler displaces and replaces the native. And while settler-colonialism, genocide, and apartheid are clearly not mutually exclusive, their ability to capture the material reality of Palestinians remains elusive. South Africa is a particular case of settler-colonialism. So are Israel, the United States, Australia, Canada, Algeria, and more. The framework of settler colonialism is both useful and insufficient. It does not provide meaningful ways to understand the nuance between these different historical processes and does not necessitate a particular outcome. Some settler colonial cases have been incredibly normalized at the expense of a completed genocide. Others have led to radically different end solutions. Palestine both fulfills and defies the settler-colonial condition.

We must consider Palestine through the iterations of Palestinians. If the Holocaust is the paradigmatic case for the crime of genocide and South Africa for that of apartheid, then the crime against the Palestinian people must be called the Nakba.

The term Nakba, meaning “Catastrophe,” is often used to refer to the making of the State of Israel in Palestine, a process that entailed the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and destroying 531 Palestinian villages between 1947 to 1949. But the Nakba has never ceased; it is a structure not an event. Put shortly, the Nakba is ongoing.

In its most abstract form, the Nakba is a structure that serves to erase the group dynamic: the attempt to incapacitate the Palestinians from exercising their political will as a group. It is the continuous collusion of states and systems to exclude the Palestinians from materializing their right to self-determination. In its most material form, the Nakba is each Palestinian killed or injured, each Palestinian imprisoned or otherwise subjugated, and each Palestinian dispossessed or exiled.

The Nakba is both the material reality and the epistemic framework to understand the crimes committed against the Palestinian people. And these crimes—encapsulated in the framework of Nakba—are the result of the political ideology of Zionism, an ideology that originated in late nineteenth century Europe in response to the notions of nationalism, colonialism, and antisemitism.

As Edward Said reminds us, Zionism must be assessed from the standpoint of its victims, not its beneficiaries. Zionism can be simultaneously understood as a national movement for some Jews and a colonial project for Palestinians. The making of Israel in Palestine took the form of consolidating Jewish national life at the expense of shattering a Palestinian one. For those displaced, misplaced, bombed, and dispossessed, Zionism is never a story of Jewish emancipation; it is a story of Palestinian subjugation.

What is distinctive about the Nakba is that it has extended through the turn of the 21st century and evolved into a sophisticated system of domination that has fragmented and reorganized Palestinians into different legal categories, with each category subject to a distinctive type of violence. Fragmentation thus became the legal technology underlying the ongoing Nakba. The Nakba has encompassed both apartheid and genocidal violence in a way that makes it fulfill these legal definitions at various points in time while still evading their particular historical frames.

Palestinians have named and theorized the Nakba even in the face of persecution, erasure, and denial. This work has to continue in the legal domain. Gaza has reminded us that the Nakba is now. There are recurringthreats by Israeli politicians and other public figures to commit the crime of the Nakba, again. If Israeli politicians are admitting the Nakba in order to perpetuate it, the time has come for the world to also reckon with the Palestinian experience. The Nakba must globalize for it to end.

We must imagine that one day there will be a recognized crime of committing a Nakba, and a disapprobation of Zionism as an ideology brd on racial elimination. The road to get there remains long and challenging, but we do not have the privilege to relinquish any legal tools available to name the crimes against the Palestinian people in the present and attempt to stop them. The denial of the genocide in Gaza is rooted in the denial of the Nakba. And both must end, now.

[howtofightwrite]

Do you have any advice for writing an intense, overwhelming chase scene?

So, this is a little unusual, in that it's something I haven't really thought a lot about.

For a real world situation, the process is to identify or create an opening, and escape. Usually this advice is more focused for situations for situations where someone's cornered you.

Also, the real world advice is to avoid a chase if at all possible. You don't want to get into a situation where you're directly testing your endurance against your enemy.

As for writing a chase scene. This is one of those times when you want to be efficient with your words, keep things as concise as possible. When you get more verbose it “slows down” the scene because it is literally slowing your reader's progress down.

Chases can be very logistically intensive for you, simply because you need a fairly coherent mental image of how the locations in your story fit together. Maps can be extremely helpful for this, whether you choose to share them or not.

I don't think I've talked about this on the blog, maps can be very helpful for getting a concrete image of how your world is put together, though, they can also, easily, start soaking up more time than the value they offer. That said, even pretty crude maps could be very useful in planning a chase scene. This is one of the times when your world needs to lock together into a unified space, instead of being able to move characters between loosely connected locations.

If you want the reader to have a detailed mental image for the locations, then you should probably have them in those spaces before the chase. Though, this is a situation where some, “stock locations,” could work for you. Liminal spaces can work pretty well for this, because most of your readers are going to have a preexisting basis for understanding what those areas look like. For example: even if their image of an airport causeway is different from yours, you'll both be close enough to the same space that you shouldn't run into many problems where you need to define the entire area.

It's also worth considering that as the chase progresses, it's possible to get gradually more verbose. As mentioned above, this will slow the reader, and as a result the scene, but it can convey the loss of inertia as your character tires or finds themselves having to slow down because they're now in unfamiliar (and possibly unsafe) territory, without being extremely direct about your character's exhaustion. This is an area that can benefit from some pretty careful word selection to hint at fatigue without outright stating it.

I do apologize that this is all pretty high level, concept advice, and a lot of this can be applied in other contexts. And, a lot of the above advice are things to keep in mind for all of your writing, but chases do stress these specific parts of your writing and world building.

Beyond that, it's the normal advice: Remember your world is a living place, so other people would be going about their daily lives while the chase rampages through. Remember persistence consequences, such as prior injuries, or injuries inflicted during the chase. Chases might lead into situations where other kinds of consequences might become unexpectedly relevant, such as your character being forced to run through the territory of a gang they angered earlier in the story. This is an opportunity to bring in unexpected consequences. Even if you don't stick to it, at least have an initial idea for what you want from the chase, then let the sequence play out as you go. (Cleaning this up is what rewrites are for, but it is important to let the chase flow, before you go back and worry about cleaning it up.)

Like I said at the beginning, this is something I don't generally think about, so it's been a bit before I could get back to this question, and I hope this helps.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[violetrainbow412-blog]

New look [S. R.]

Spencer Reid x fem!reader

word count: 800

Summary: directly based on "The internet is forever" (5x22), when Reid's wonderful but short-lived boyband cut appears for the first time

Most of you were sitting in the conference room when JJ got ready to present the case. That particular night you had slept very little and to perform at work you thought it necessary to prepare yourself a coffee Spencer-style, who, by the way, had not yet deigned to appear at the bureau's offices.

“This is Dorris Archer, she's the third woman to go missing in Boise, Idaho, this year, along with Paula Renmar and Samantha Rush” the blonde began to say, under the attention of the entire team “They went missing roughly 2 months apart …” suddenly she cut off her words and her gaze traveled behind you. Out of inertia you turned your head and your breath caught a bit when you looked at who it was.

Of course you were glad to see your friend finally show up, but you honestly hadn't expected to see him like this. 

"Well, hello," JJ sneered, grinning in astonishment and approval at the man's new look.

Spencer took a seat in the chair next to you and all eyes fell on him, especially yours and Hotch's, albeit for very different reasons. You had gotten used to seeing his hair falling over his shoulders, even a couple of times you had come to help the man hold it with one of your scrunchies, but to be honest, the cut at that moment suited him much better than it should. It made him look cute and at the same time so… sexy? Yeah, maybe that was the word.

Although you wanted to say something, the words didn’t leave your lips and your boss was the first to speak:

"What, did you join a boy band?" he, miraculously, joked. 

"No," Reid replied, genuinely confused, and that was reason enough for all of you, without exception, to start laughing. When he heard your laughter, he looked in your direction and smiled kindly in greeting, to which you responded with a friendly squeeze on his arm.

Emily mumbled something to follow up on the case, but even against your will your mind was occupied with a completely different matter; being more specific on a certain person right next to you. You kept blatantly staring at him for a long time and when he felt that attention you saw him turn his head towards you, an obvious sparkle of concern in his eyes. Out of respect for the unit, he didn't say anything to you, but as soon as JJ finished presenting the case and you both got up from the table, he walked over to you.

"What's going on?"

"What's going on about what?”

“You were staring at me a long time ago,” he pointed out, but it wasn't like you were hiding it “Do I look that terrible?”

When you realized the confusion that had been generated, you couldn't contain a laugh and that only increased your friend's nervousness. You two were the only ones left in the conference room, so no one would be able to hear what you had to say.

“Just the opposite, Spence. I was looking at you because I think you look very handsome” you confessed, smiling kindly at him from where you were, and one moment you saw him turn red up to his ears, because he probably didn't expect that kind of response.

"Are you serious?" he asked you timidly.

"Very seriously" you approached him to extend your hands up to his head so you could run your fingers through the strands of his hair. When he understood your intentions, he crouched slightly and simply enjoyed the contact "Although I've already gotten used to your long hair, I admit that I like this one too. It looks messier, like you're more rebellious"

"I was a little undecided about the shape," he told you, making his usual hand movements "but when I started to cut it, I thought it would be the best option and at the end I was afraid I was making a mistake, because I had never had it like that before"

“Did you cut it yourself?” you half squealed, looking at him in complete disbelief, and he nodded with a small smile “Handsome, smart, kind and now you're a barber. You're quite a jack of all trades, huh, Reid?"

"Enough, don't say those things" he laughed, turning all shy and silly at your flattery.

"Looks like I'll have to keep you away from the girls" you concluded playfully, while you winked at him and took your bag to get out of there "See you there, don't be late"

Spencer just chuckled to himself and watched you go, still internally debating whether he should take your shameless flirtations as a joke or if you really meant it. Whatever the case, he was grateful to have made that impulsive decision solely for the pleasure of hearing his little (not that much, really) crush call him handsome.

taglist: @navs-bhat @reidwritings @tricia-shifting14 @spencerslove