My online art and story journal. I also like commenting on stuff I'm interested in, from stories and tropes to matters of faith and philosophy. Anyway, feel free to take a look around, and I hope you find something interesting!//30 y.o. nerd who never outgrew cartoons and swashbucklers//Scientist, Aspiring Theologian, Fencer, Writer, Cartoonist, Literature Enthusiast, Musician, Poet
Soooo a headcanon of mine that’s dear to my heart and super important to me is that Simba makes a special effort to have lunch with Timon and Pumbaa at least once a week. No matter how busy he is with his royal duties, he always makes time for his dads. ❤️
(I started thumbnailing this two years ago and I just now decided to finish it. This is the most complicated background I’ve attempted to paint in YEARS, so please be gentle on me. 🥲)
The Three Amigos-Leo King, Trevor Khan, and Wesley Packard
Leo King, my lion MMA fighter, has two best friends. Trevor Khan the tiger and Leo have been friends since they were toddlers (their parents were family friends), but they only met Wesley Packard the wolf on the first day of middle school. Wesley was the new kid, and Leo and Trevor sat with him at lunch and made him feel welcome. The three friends called themselves the Three Amigos ever since.
Trevor and Wesley train with Leo regularly, helping round out his skill set. Leo’s strength is in boxing, while Trevor has a black belt in Brazilian jiu jitsu (specializing in no-gi), while Wesley gives Leo a literal run for his money training him in general cardiovascular endurance.
STOP no more live-action remakes. We're going the other way now. Animated Casablanca. Animated The Godfather. Animated Oppenheimer. Animated Fight Club.
I’m willing to sacrifice my notes for this because I’m curious. so TikTok has been blowing up with this very divisive thought experiment, and I am convinced the results on tumblr will be very different based on culture here. Feel free to participate and share your thought process! For those easily caught up in rumination, this experiment involves moral ambiguity and hypothetical harm, skip if you need to.
The thought experiment goes like this. A large group of people (the whole world or a whole country or just a large and diverse group) each individually must press one of two buttons, a red button and a blue button. On their own, both buttons do nothing. However, if more than 50% of people press the red button, everyone who pressed the blue button will die. If more than 50% of people press the blue button nothing happens.
Which button do you press?
red
blue
Voting ended onMay 11
Is the button you would press different from the one you think is correct? Is there an ethical imperative to press one over the other? Which button should people press? I’ll discuss TikTok’s reaction below the cut
I want to emphasize that I don’t think this experiment reflects morality. I don’t think red or blue represent some Kantian ethical imperative and that someone is bad for choosing one or the other. Hell, I think there’s a right choice, but in the moment, I don’t know if I could choose it. Moreso I think this experiment shows the ways in which individualism vs collectivism function in the public subconscious.
TikTok is VERY split on this one. I would say it’s around 50/50, but red is a VERY vocal group. Their insistence is that people who would press the blue button are irresponsible, and they shouldn’t need to needlessly endanger their own life to press the blue button to save people too stupid to not press the red button. Meanwhile, people who would press the blue button argue that it’s impossible to get 100% of people to press red, that 50% is a much more reasonable goal, and that people who would press red are engendering eugenics rhetoric. From that write up it’s probably pretty clear where I stand.
people have tried reframing it over and over to get others to understand their positions. However what it comes back to is that people who would press the red button believe they are not actually killing anyone, blue button pushers are just pointlessly killing themselves. Meanwhile blue button pushers argue that pressing red is deliberately causing harm because they know people WILL press the blue button, and therefore are willing to actively cause harm to save themselves.
it’s a complex topic I think, but mostly what’s been interesting is seeing a phenomenon of what I believe is guilt over pressing red and making justifications to convince themselves that blue was an objectively wrong choice and they are superior. Blue people are not lashing out in this way against team red, merely advocating for communalism and understanding and the occasional insult about amorality. But mostly it is an army of people I think feel bad, don’t like that they feel bad, and then do their utmost to make sure it’s everyone else’s fault and I think that speaks to the cultural mentality of individualism that dominates the sociopolitical climate right now.
I think it’s very revealing to see how this experiment has brought out those who otherwise would not have radical beliefs functionally parroting Nazi rhetoric. By contrast, tumblr is much further left, and has a much higher population of communists, socialists, and communalists. Collective good is often assumed to be a given over individualism, and so I’m curious to see if the poll results reflect that. I hope that I framed the experiment in a neutral way, even if the write up here is clearly biased blue!
We used to use actual matzah bread for communion at our church, since that’s the traditional bread Jews use during Passover and the Last Supper was a Passover meal. But then, our second pastor’s son had a gluten allergy, and so we stopped using matzah bread and started using gluten free crackers.
My mom buys the full-sized version of those same crackers to snack on, and whenever I raid her pantry I can’t stop myself from saying, “Yum, the Body of Christ.”
That’s because modern Leftists (which many academics and teachers are) believe most of the same things Robespierre and the Jacobins did. They see themselves in their philosophy and can’t bear the thought that they’re actually the bad guys.
I flipped open my Bible today and I reread the passage about worry and the flowers of the field (Matthew 7:25-34). For those of you who haven't read it, he basically says look, you can't control the future. You can try your best but ultimately you can't change what happens. But birds have food to eat, and flowers have petals to clothe them, because God cares for them, and doesn't he care even more about us?
How would we walk, how would we talk, how would we be, if we acted like God is telling the truth?
I am a very anxious and very angry person because I want to be in control all the time, I want my way to be what happens. But at the end of the day I can't let the feelings of futility destroy me
The answer to my incapability is God's capability. The answer to fear is not control, but trust.
He is sovereign, he is on his throne. He sees, he cares, he knows, he loves.
Fuck Meyer-Briggs whatever typology. This INTFP shit is only for redditors up their own asses to substitute for a personality. Use my new typology instead!
The tragedy of the commons is a real phenomenon but its most common and famous forms were propagated by radical left-wing thinkers as arguments to undermine trust in free market dynamics and argue in favor of centralized command economic structures, i.e. socialism and communism.
What everyone forgets about free markets is that when people are allowed to operate according to their own interests and values, one must ask what those interests and values are. Now, in our current era, secularism and hedonism are the dominant philosophies, and this does lead to the tragedy of the commons. But when Adam Smith wrote in the 18th century, Western culture was much less secular and much more Christian, at least culturally. And Christianity taught concern for the poor and the responsibilities that the nobility had to provide for the well-being of their underlings. It wasn’t a perfect system by any stretch, but a society influenced by the relational, others-focused ethos of Christianity instead of the selfishness of hedonistic, social-Darwinistic secularism is not one that will treat the commons as a free resource to be exploited faster than others will.