birth of a notion


The Hogwarts Houses as Enlightenment Philosophers Aesthetic

Slytherin as Thomas Hobbes

The author of Leviathan, Hobbes argued that the absolute power of a king comes from a choice made by his subjects, where they choose to sacrifice some of their freedoms for the sake of protection. In his view, nature was created without law and order, and that state could only be changed by civilization and authority. He also expressed a great deal of distrust toward organized religion, believing that it could be used to spark unrest and civil war. Although he was the most conservative of all of these enlightenment thinkers, as he upheld the virtue of monarchy, it was nonetheless Hobbes who first developed many ideas that influenced later thinkers: mankind’s inherent equality; the right of the individual; the need for the people’s will to be represented by their leaders; and the “social contract”, where a king only has power because of the will of the majority. 

Hufflepuff as John Locke

The author of Two Treatises of Government, Locke agreed with Hobbes on many points but disagreed on a few key things that would make him the most famous of all these thinkers and the “Father of Liberalism.” His best known contribution was the notion that, at birth, every man is endowed with natural, inalienable rights – life, liberty, and property – that cannot be given away or taken by anyone else. In Locke’s view, every person is born a “tabala rasa” (or “blank slate”), and knowledge is only gained through experience and sensory perception. Locke also believed in quiet, restrained government that only interferes when it absolutely has to, not unlike what future American revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson would later champion. Locke favored a representative democratic government that would mainly protect property and trade and little else.

Ravenclaw as Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu

The author of The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu contradicted both Locke and Hobbes, proclaiming that in nature, humans are not inherently good or wicked, but rather just weak, fearful creatures that naturally avoid violence.Therefore once mankind joins society, they lose their inherent equality and knowledge of their own mortality and learn to pursue war and conquest. It’s that thirst for war and conquest that then leads to government and the creation of laws. Montesquieu theorized that the best approach to government was to split it into distinct, separate entities – he liked the concept of three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) that could check and balance the others. This of course would later inspire the United States’ three branches of government. His idea of three would also shape his concept of the three types of government – monarchy, ruled by honor; republic, ruled by virtue; and despotism, ruled by fear.

Gryffindor as Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The author of The Social Contract, Rousseau is generally considered the most radical of these thinkers. He believed that all people are born happy and equal, only to be corrupted by society at large as they grow up. In Rousseau’s mind, the only reason that people are subservient to kings is because the lower classes were deceived into seeing higher ones as superior. Thus the so-called “social contract” is in truth a scam perpetrated by the wealthy against the rest of society. Rousseau’s central theme, however, was individuality – not only did he strongly believe in the idea of a direct democracy (rather than a representative one), but he believed all decisions, both legal and legislative, should be made “by the people” alone, and not by any sort of court or executive authority. He also championed the idea that it was more valuable for children’s education to revolve around morality and character than about imparting to them information and concepts.

Note: All of these philosophers have their strengths and weaknesses, and I’m sure all of you will have your own opinions about their theories. All I wanted to do was use these thinkers to draw parallels to the psychological split between the four houses, not dictate what everyone personally believes. Hell, I’m a Slytherin, and I personally think that each of these thinkers brought something good to the table. And I would not mind giving each of them a boot to the head for some other stupid thing they believed in. So there you go.

anonymous asked:

Who originally thought about bombing and shooting up Columbine, Eric or Dylan?

We don’t really know. We don’t know how that conversation first began or who initiated the idea. However, we can guess.

In November 1997, Dylan writes “[redacted] will get me a gun, I’ll go on my killing spree against anyone I want”. It’s the first mention we have of murder (and, more importantly, of a killing spree) after he already mentioned suicide more than once in the previous entries. One of those suicide-entries also has him reflecting on [redacted] getting him a gun so Dylan can use that gun on himself. What’s interesting is that this gun provider was not Eric, as Eric’s name remains unredacted throughout the evidence. Dylan’s first reference to NBK happens in February 1998, but the person he names as wanting to do that with is also redacted.

Eric didn’t start his journal until April 1998. In its third entry (still within that same month), he writes “ when I go NBK”. The choice of words here – when instead of if – shows that the idea had already taken shape prior to the entry and that Eric was already treating it as something definite. There is more murder-related stuff on his website, though no direct references to NBK the way he mentions it in his journal, but none of those entries were dated (though they’re likely to be from the 1997-1998 era).

Note that both of these entries are still individualistic: they talk about a killing spree/NBK as something they’re going to do alone. Dylan first writes of going NBK with Eric in January 1999. He didn’t sound too happy about it and many have speculated that this wasn’t his first choice. Eric, on his part, writes “when we go NBK” in October 1998 and mentions Dylan later on in that same entry in connection with these plans.

Logically speaking, we could say the following:

  • The idea of a killing spree was born a little before Dylan’s earliest mention of it in November 1997. I’d tentatively put mid-1997 as the initial birth of the idea.
  • By February 1998, Dylan mentions going NBK with someone else. He’s already moved forward into not wanting to do this alone.
  • Eric first mentions going NBK as a solitary idea in April 1998 – something for him to do alone.
  • What’s interesting here is that they both use the same terminology for the idea: both use the codename NBK for this. That would suggest that they spoke about the notion with each other, probably in conjunction with the movie they both liked, some time in early 1998.
  • By October 1998, Eric is already convinced that he’s going to do this together with Dylan.
  • November 1998 sees them acquiring the guns.
  • By January 1999 Dylan acknowledges the plan and says “maybe going “NBK” (gawd) with Eric is the way to break free”. Dylan is still treating it as an option instead of as a definite at this point.

Who originally thought about it? The evidence suggests that it was Dylan who first came up with the idea of going on a killing spree, but we don’t have any dated writing by Eric from that time. That makes it hard to know what was going on in the latter’s head at the time Dylan first wrote about the killing spree. However, it’s very clear that the two really came together on the idea between April and October 1998, though Dylan already knew he wasn’t going to go through with it alone as early as February 1998. I have no doubt that mid-1998 saw the actual birth of NBK as we now know it: Dylan’s notion of a killing spree with guns combined with Eric’s love of explosives in those months and that’s when the idea of bombing the school and shooting the survivors/first responders came into being as a definite sort of plan. It’s likely that they spoke of the idea among themselves earlier on than that, too, but I personally think that it didn’t really come into definite being prior to those months because Eric still mentions lone-wolfing the whole thing as late as April 1998.

respectability + assimilationists non-binary politics

A lot of people seem confused when I talk about how non-binary activism can be into respectability + assimilationists politics because “how can a group whose existence isn’t recognized be assimilationist?” and “Isn’t non-binary politics inherently radical?”.

And the answer is no, non-binary isn’t inherently radical and yes, non-binary can be assimilationist. Here’s why:

Radical means ‘to strike at the root’. To have a radical approach to non-binary politics is, for example, to fight the gendering of babies at birth based on their genitals, to expose the way capitalism shaped the notion of two genders to control its workers and colonialism eradicated non-western gender identities and to call for a broad anticapitalist, anticolonialist non-binary politics that rejects all gendering at birth and all forms of grouping humanity in two, or three, gender labels.

Assimilationist means 'to make assimilation your goal’. An assimilationist approach to non-binary politics is to work for a place non-binary people within existing structures. To argue for a place for non-binary people within the military and the representation of non-binary people in politics, to have a non-binary clothing segment at the GAP and in many other ways to establish non-binary people as a third recognized group of consumers under capitalism and voters under an imperialist state.

Radical politics is an uncomfortable dinner guest that challenge the way cisgender people live their lives and raise their children. Assimilationist politics avoids these prickly politics to gain a seat at the table.

Respectability is a tool by which assimiliationism is furthered. Respectability as a tool of non-binary politics means to create a narrative of what it means to be non-binary that is comprehensive to the masses and to fight narratives that are contradictory or paradoxical, it means to select a number of non-binary spokes people that are respectable: pretty, professional, articulate, not a sex worker, addict, criminal etc. In other words: people you would comfortably take as a date to your grandmothers christmas dinner. Respectability politics pushed these people forward and tries to silent the non-binary people it does not see and being good role models. The messy, the openly sexual, the anarchists, the rebels. All these voices must be drowned out to present non-binary people as an acceptable third group of consumer-citizens.

Sound farmiliar?

Side aspects of respectability and assimilationist politics are:
- throwing groups under the bus whose identity is seen as 'too weird’ or 'not deserving’ of assimilation.
- praising people and organisations that aid non-binary people regardless of their other flaws. For example: cheering the production of a gender neutral clothing line by a company that uses child labour.
- colonialism: presenting the western idea of what it means to be to be non-binary as universal for humanity. Grouping all non-western genderdiversity under a western umbrella term.
- more stuff.

Of course I am not saying that all non-binary activists are into respectability politics and assimilation. Far from it. There are a lot of radical non-binary activists out there. But an assimilationist movement within non-binary activism definitely exists and it needs to be recognized as such.

Mpreg: it's not a tumor?

Aye, it appears it’s NOT a tumor. To anyone else who grew up an Arnold fan, we know what that means. Those of us who never heard of mpreg may chuckle sensibly at the mere notion of a man giving birth. Maybe you never did! Or maybe you still do.

Yet others, like myself, are not just baffled, but genuinely curious: outside of a humorous setting, what IS the underlying appeal of mpreg? I dont have to relate, but I would like to understand. Would any fans of mpreg care to enlighten me, and maybe others, who never really quite understood the appeal it has to you and other fans? What does mpreg mean to you, and why do you like it?

A Hittite god, Kumarbi, managed to become pregnant by eating his rival’s penis. His offspring refused to come out through his mouth or ears, and having no vagina he was unable to deliver them. Finally the sea god Ea took them out through his side, as Adam’s God did later. The idea for Adam’s magic birth-giving rib came from a Sumerian childbirth-goddess, Nin-ti, “Lady of the Rib.” Since ti meant both
“rib” and “life,” she was also a Lady of Life. She made infants’ bones in utero from their mothers’ ribs, which is why biblical writers thought ribs possessed the magic of maternity.
An odd male-birth myth came from Persia’s intensely patriarchal
Zoroastrian cult, suggesting a combination of homosexuality and
bestiality. The primal being, the Sole-Created Bull, was castrated and
slain. Its semen went to the moon to be purified; then from this
purified seed two new bulls were formed. From these, “all animals
descended.” The hidden feminine element in this phallic fantasy was
the moon, of course; but the two bulls must have procreated homosexually. This idea was not unknown even in Christian Europe.
“Authorities” like Paracelsus taught that a monster may be born of a
man as a result of oral or anal intercourse with another man. No
matter how impossible it seemed, men apparently wished to preserve at any price the notion that a male could give birth.
—  Barbara G. Walker, “Birth-giving, Male”, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (1983) 
Fog and Fire: 1.4

What the library had told her…

It was impossible. Ridiculous. She had failed her tests utterly; there was no magical potential in her, she’d been quite thoroughly told, not the faintest spark. Besides, Ms. Harcourt knew her family history back to her grandparents’ grandparents, and she knew they were no magician-line. They had never come close to holding a Name; there was not the faintest touch of the old blood in any of them. How, then, could she ever be expected to become a magician? Was the library trying to suggest that she was somehow swapped at birth? She could not seriously entertain that notion-she looked far too much like all the rest of her family-but she did not know what else she was supposed to think.

Keep reading

Many outlanders, even that of Dunmeri birth, seem to not understand our notion of the after life. We do not go to Aetherius like the Divine worshipers, we do not become one with the earth like our Bosmeri-cousins, we do not join with the Hist like the scale-backs of the southern swamps, we do not go to the sugar-palaces of Secunda like the Khajiit, we do not go to a mead palace like Sovngarde or the Far Shores of the Yokudans. Even our way to our resting place is different from the other races, our way to Heaven is guided by Saint Veloth for it is only fitting that the race that descends from pilgrims commit one last pilgrimage to our final rest.
One common misconception is that Necrom, or the City of the Dead, that exists under the City of Above is our heaven, is it not. Think of it like a trade ship from Port Telvannis to Tears, we leave Port Telvannis but we are not obligated to stay in Tears. Saint Veloth is our ship-master to Necrom but from Necrom our spirits can go anywhere and always return. Necrom is the port that connects to multiple destinations, some may be to our ancestral tombs, our descendants or gateways to the realms of our gods, the reclamationists Azura, Boethiah and Mephala.
Why would we return to Tamriel? The ignorant outlander asks and our answer is always simple, family. Family for us is the most important thing, even in death our clan-bounds are strong and even in death we must protect our family from those who try to harm them. Our ancestors are our guides in life and in death, they travel to aid us, they travel to save us, they travel to protect us. The Clan-bound Pilgrims is the best description of our dead for all Dunmer spirits are pilgrims.
How are the Dunmer spirits able to go to the Daedric realms? The outlanders ask, it’s quite simple. Necrom was originally Saint Nerevar’s tomb, his last destination if you will. On that holy site we built our resting places, our eternal homes and our gods, glorious as they are, granted us the ultimate gift. The gift of entrance to move throughout their realms and back home whenever we please. Though the way is blocked for mortals our spirits can see and pass through the gates of Moonshadow, Snake Mount and the webspinner’s numerous realms that rest on her webs.
No matter what death befalls our kin may they always know that the halls and streets of Necrom will always open their doors for them.
Hail the Reclamationists, the Saints that guide us and our honored ancestors.

A Dunmer’s View on Death
A understanding of the next life
By Curate Sedris Arendu of the Necrom shrine of Saint Veloth
Permission given by the council of Indoril and the Patriarchs of the Temple

(Written by our writer Cider over on Dark Creations)

To anon,

I believe you have misinterpreted my posts entirely. My problem is not that of a terf, the whole “erasing womanhood” is not my argument. My issue with it is teaching children and forcing society to play along with ideas such as men can have periods, give birth, breastfeed, and we must all nod our heads and agree to the new understanding, all because a woman with a mental disorder thinks in her head that she’s a man. I stayed quiet on the matter for a long time as it’s never bothered me, though it’s slowly evolved away from pronouns, bathrooms and trans acceptance and into something just totally insane.

You lecture me on what makes them trans and how they see themselves, and as I’ve said over and over, they can think and feel whatever they like, I support their right to identify and do whatever the hell they want to do. Though again, the second you begin to tactically deceive children, strip them from learning about biological realities and replace it with unproven gender theory and start injecting hormone blockers into them, and the moment we can be fined, fired or even locked up for being hesitant to normalize genital mutilation or if we don’t play along and call a woman with a buzzcut a man, you lose my support. 

Sure, we should be respectful and for the sake of politeness, I don’t see the problem calling trans people by their “preferred pronoun,” and if that’s all that we were talking about then we would have no issue at all. Though it goes far beyond pronouns doesn’t it, and into the realm of intellectual dishonesty, dangerous, bizarre and unproven “treatment” and government enforcement. 

You also go on to try to use the example of intersex as the main reason why we are not defined by our sex, hence it being supposedly interchangeable. We are talking about 0.04% of the population who have a birth defect and trying to use it to justify the bizarre notion that the sex of the remaining 99.06% are not defined by their sex organs and characteristics. You say “ Is a person with breasts and other characteristics, but no vagina, a woman? 99% of times, people would say yes.” Uh, what? I think you’d find 99% of people would say no, as we all understand what makes us either a man or woman. 

A lot of what you wrote is standard gender theory which I’m all too familiar with, but we have to remember that none of it is proven, so as much as you state it to me as facts, I know for a fact of my own that you cannot prove any of it to me, it’s called theory for a reason. This is the biggest barrier in us finding solid common ground on this argument, you believe in something that is unproven and only recently theorized whereas I only deal with facts. So if you’d like to carry this discussion into private messaging, I’d be happy to discuss it with you in greater detail, if not, thanks for your input and your willingness for debate :) x

Within His Arms - 2

Summary: After your father is killed on a hunting trip you are faced with the reality that you are now truly alone. The Winchesters are determined to help you but when they were the cause of your sorrow, how can you let them in; Especially Dean who broke your heart.  But more so how can Dean mend the bridge between the two of you with his guilt ripping him apart. This is a story about learning to live again and finding forgiveness when you don’t think it’s possible.

Words: 2589
Warnings: No real swearing, themes of grief
Pairings: Dean Winchester x Reader

Part 1

As you passed through the town you couldn’t help the way your memories pulled at you, wanting to comfort you as your heart cracked and shattered. There were so many good times within this small town, so many memories with your father and the boys. You could almost taste the strawberry milkshakes you and your father used to share when he took you out on Thursday nights, only the two of you. You heart wanted to stay in the moment when everything in your life was still innocent, before the monsters started hunting you.

The boys knew all about the monsters but your father wanted to shield you as much as possible, 

But Bobby couldn’t hide you away forever and when if was your turn to learn about monsters he guided you through everything with love. Teaching you the basics to protect yourself but not everything because he swore there would never be a time where he couldn’t protect you himself. But that time had come.

Nothing could protect you now.

Keep reading

Lilly Pulitzer is preppy. It is part of a preppy uniform that announces itself from fifty paces. It is not so much a declaration of wealth as it is a perceived statement about class, lineage and attitude… Lilly Pulitzer suggests an advantage of birth. The clothes stir up scrapbook notions of ancient family trees, summer compounds, boarding school uniforms and large, granite buildings inscribed with great-great-grandfather’s name.
The clothes are, upon close inspection, not so terribly attractive. Actually, they are rather unattractive. And that is part of their charm. They are not meant to be stylish — that’s so nouveau. The clothes are clubby. Country clubby. One-percent-ish.