Reblog This If You Are A CHRISTIAN And PROTESTANT.

"This is the part where the floor drops, right?"

Things to say in a crowded elevator, go.

C.S. Lewis is one of the most culturally relevant and important authors for western society and Christians in general and i will die on this hill

I always kind of laugh when people get into the “Susan’s treatment is proof that C.S. Lewis was a misogynist” thing, because:

Polly and Digory. Peter and Susan. Edmund and Lucy. Eustace and Jill. 

Out of the eight “Friends of Narnia” who enter from our world, the male-to-female character ratio is exactly 1/1. Not one of these female characters serves as a love interest at any time. 

The Horse and His Boy, the only book set entirely in Narnia, maintains this ratio with Shasta and Aravis, who, we are told in a postscript, eventually marry. Yet even here, the story itself is concerned only with the friendship between them. Lewis focuses on Aravis’ value as a brave friend and a worthy ally rather than as a potential girlfriend–and ultimately, we realize that it’s these qualities that make her a good companion for Shasta. They are worthy of each other, equals. 

In the 1950s, there was no particularly loud cry for female representation in children’s literature. As far as pure plot goes, there’s no pressing need for all these girls. A little boy could have opened the wardrobe (and in the fragmentary initial draft, did). Given that we already know Eustace well by The Silver Chair, it would not seem strictly necessary for a patently ordinary schoolgirl to follow him on his return trip to Narnia, yet follow she does–and her role in the story is pivotal. Why does the humble cab-driver whom Aslan crowns the first King of Narnia immediately ask for his equally humble wife, who is promptly spirited over, her hands full of washing, and crowned queen by his side? Well, because nothing could be more natural than to have her there. 

None of these women are here to fill a quota. They’re here because Lewis wanted them there. 

Show me the contemporary fantasy series with this level of equality. It doesn’t exist. 

Tbh, the atomization of my generation is one of the saddest things ive ever seen. Like, to have a society at all requires individuals casting aside their own desires and needs and wants in order to support mutual survival. Different people with different morals and different belief systems coming together for something greater than themselves, whether that be the construction of a measly little building to provide shelter or a great city to protect their children, that's one of the best things about humanity in general (and let's be real humanity isn't the greatest). but its so sad to see my generation being raised with the idea that the individual is all that matters, because all that's going to come from it is a generation of self-interested, uncooperative, confused individuals. bc like it or not, men (meaning human beings in general) are not gods, and the simple fact that the only people we can can control are ourselves is proof enough of that. so to raise people with the idea that we are all fundementally gods only serves to make them confused when reality has its say and it turns out there's so much more than just themselves. nobody can have conversations, nobody can make sacrifices and the worst part is that nobody really believes in anything anymore just what serves them the best. and its all because we keep telling ourselves that we're the exception, we're the standard, we're the gods on earth and it just means that we're a generation of people yelling over each other, screaming "I'm special! I'm significant!" while everyone else screams the same about ourselves and the irony is, if more people focused on what unites us instead of what makes them different, more people would appreciate what makes each other significant, worth something but no we just scream into the uncaring darkess that our voice is all that matters and feel angry when our voice echoes back to us

I have a political thought experiment that I would like to share with you all that I call "Persuading the serial killer," which is really just about how you'd persuade someone who exists outside of your moral framework.

This is inspired by the fact that I watch too much true crime, but the thought experiment goes like this: If you were faced with a serial killer trying to kill you or someone else, how would you convince them not to? Serial killers do not conform to common morals like "killing is wrong," so arguing "You shouldn't kill me because killing is immoral!" is not going to help you. They don't recognize your moral system as real or valuable, so you cannot use it to persuade them. I, personally, would argue like so: "I have a very regular schedule, and people have already noticed that I'm missing. My mother and I talk almost constantly. She alone is probably already panicking that I'm gone and has called the police. I also have serious medical issues on record, so they won't wait the regular 24 hrs to start searching for me. You have a chance to get away now, but not if you spend time murdering me and hiding my body." Straight practical reasons why doing what they want to do will bring about something they absolutely don't want, i.e. if you waste time on murdering me, a high-priorty missing person, you'll get caught and never kill again.

The way this applies to politics is that you're gonna encounter people who do not completely overlap with your morals - probably not serial killers though. Like most Republicans and most Democrats would agree that unprovoked homicide is wrong and bad. No one is trying to pass a bill to get murder blanket-legalized. But obviously, conservatives have different moral views on things like abortion.

You cannot argue with a conservative that abortion isn't wrong. Your opinion that life does not begin at conception or that the right to choose should be in the pregnant person's hands no matter what exists outside of their moral framework just like "murder is wrong" exists outside the moral framework of a serial killer. So if I'm trying to argue against abortion legislation with someone I know is anti-abortion, I argue that abortion laws don't reduce abortions or abortion-related deaths. That the real way to reduce abortions is to make birth control over-the-counter and available to teenagers without parental permission like in the U.K. That if they think that is bad because it "promotes" premarital sex, they need to choose which is worse to them: teenagers having sex or abortions happening because teenagers are still going to have sex. That more support networks for pregnant people who want to keep the pregnancy but worry about their ability to financially support the child would do more good, and that there are several run by churches (but not enough, perhaps they should start one at their church)! That anti-abortion organizations in Europe who crusade against abortion in these ways are more successful at reducing abortion than any country with laws on the books to stop it.

You can apply this with a lot of things, but in short, when arguing with someone with different political views or morals that are mutually exclusive with yours, it's a bad bet to appeal to "but that's wrong! but that's bad! but that's immoral!" Jump straight to the practicalities, i.e. "That won't get you what you want, and here's why," not "You shouldn't want this." This won't always work (ex: you might run through all those abortion arguments, not satisfy the conservative you're arguing with, and in the process figure out that they really just want to legally punish people for premarital sex and don't actually care about abortion). However, leaving your morals out of an argument is your best bet at getting through to another person who may not share them.

*Updated to remove use of the term "psychopath" because I'm told that's an outdated concept.

URGH I WANT A GIANT GODDESS TO SNUGGLE ME SO BADLYYYY

like, imagine being the only smol creature in her majestys court or smth. Imagine all the other angels and gods tower over you. But she didn't care. She chose you to be hers, so all the courts of the high heavens can go to the other place for all she cares. Imagine her giggling in her regal voice as she tickles your relentlessly, digging her great fingers into your ribs with enough force to leave you a squealing mess but also just enough to ensure she's not harming you in any way. Imagine feeling sad and then getting plucked up out of nowhere, her soft lips nearly suffocating you with divine love as soft noises of affection come from her throat and she leaves you a tiny blushing thing in her warm, soft grasp. Imagine that she sits you on her knee and she tells you that no matter what the world says, she will love you because you are hers and because you are you and because the world is cruel she chooses to love you even more.

IMAGINE THE SNUGGLES AT NIGHT BRO IMAGINE.

This shi got me giggling and kicking me feet at 1:06 in the morning my goodness

me who reads pride and prejudice like a realer man

i don't care about bridgerton i watch pride & prejudice like a real man

the author's barely disguised longing for a kinder world

THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYINGGG. Kendrick has some of the most interesting and well-done albums in recent history, and he's just such an interesting person to discuss and everybody wants to make it about the Canadian. People don't even look at the beef in context with who these artists are and what the significance of it is, people act like it just exists in a vacuum. Honestly, we need to get better material.

>Search for Kendrick music video gifs on tumblr bc I think they're cool

>look inside

>his whole body of work is being made about one singular rap beef

>rewatch older music videos and interviews

>look inside

>all the comments are about the rap beef even if the video is almost a decade old

“In the end, it is ideas for which people kill each other”

— Think: a compelling introduction to philosophy by Simon Blackburn

are we forgetting

In elder scrolls 6 your spouse should be able to cheat on you