#its such a knee-jerk reaction

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

i think WH's last Big Update has permanently rewired something in my head because the mental jolt my brain gets whenever i see a small bug jpeg is, quite frankly, ridiculous

[homosexualmorelikehomiesexual]

god. snarkiness aside its so...interesting to me how people (mis)interpret media. like if the theme is stated outright, its too corny. if it shows rather than tells, its too artsy. where is your fucking sincerity. when was the last time you took a peice of art in good faith. wheres your whimsy your joy your romanticism your curiosity. arent you tired of taking things at face value. arent you tired of relying solely on your first impression of things. arent you tired of the constant threat of public humiliation if that first impression is wrong. dont you deserve to give yourself the grace of reconsidering. dont you wanna extend that trust to the world around you. arent you tired.

[mariusperkins]

one of the central frustrations for me about the inevitable George v Bertha fight in S3 is that it's so unequal. Not in terms of how they view their relationship or their dynamics going into the fight (although, obviously, no matter how much they see each other as equals they still very much live in the unequal 1880s), but that there could never, ever be a flipped version of their situation. Bertha is never going to step over into George's business world and tell him how to do things and even if she was, there's no support for her there (unless she did an entire character turn of being pro union, which, l o l) like there will be for George as Head Of The 1800s Family.

And obviously she's done this specific Duke-based manoeuvre because it was a way to get the specific thing she wanted in the moment, but it's not like she wasn't positioning Gladys in the Duke's sights before that, which as I have said before and will probably say another hundred times before we get to S3, is basically her job as Wealthy Socialite Wife In The 1800s.

And there's just no real recourse for her in the situation. I don't know, I know I'm getting ahead of myself (way, way ahead of myself, given when we can probably expect S3 to air lol), but I can just feel how backed into a corner she's going to be

[sojourner-between-worlds]

Not so long ago, another Christian on here shared an article about the "problems" with the Chosen. Now, I fully believe and support thinking critically about the media we consume, especially for something depicting the life of Christ. That being said, I'd like to offer some thoughts of my own about some of the most commonly cited "problems" with the series. (I ended up referencing the above article in most points, but almost all of them I have see elsewhere as well. That article was just an easy frame of reference.) I'm not here to convince anyone to watch it; I'd just like to offer an alternate perspective for anyone who is willing to listen and think critically.

As a disclaimer: no, this show is not flawless. It's a flawed show made by flawed people doing their best. There are times I take issue with it myself. There are valid criticisms. The ones below are, quite simply, ones that I believe are not.

Buckle up; this is going to be a long one.

1.Mormon Influence I can't believe I still have to explain this one, but I still see it listed as a reason not to watch, so here we go: VidAngel/ Angel Studios Mormon ties had no more bearing on the series content for being the streaming distributor than CBS currently does for being allowed to broadcast it. When a company solely has distribution rights, that does NOT mean they are making content decisions. The only time a distributor would have say on content is if they are partnered, which usually means they are paying for production in some way. Angel Studios never gave a penny towards production (this is the largest crowd-funded series to date, remember? They have no studio backing). They never had any influence. And, oh yeah, as of May 2024, they were deemed to be in breach of contract and now the Chosen no longer has any ties to the company. No influence. Got it? Good. Then we can move on.

2."What does your heart tell you?" (This one could be included in point 4, but I've seen it so often it gets its own, haha.) Okay, this one? This one I agree was not a good writing choice. However. I think this one needs a little more thought rather than taking it at knee-jerk. Yes, the heart is deceitfully wicked and cannot be trusted. But there's some nuance here that I think gets left behind when well-meaning people call out the series for this line. The heart, as referred to in Proverbs, is the will of man. The heart, in pop culture, is often synonymous with emotions. Within the context of the scene, its very clear that the second meaning is the one intended. Now, I will say "feelings are fickle" until the day I die (because they are) because they can't always be trusted to reflect the truth. Again, however. Feelings do exist to tell us things. That is literally their purpose. Not always accurately reflecting the truth of something doesn't change their purpose. And that is what the writers were going for in this scene: the emotional weight of the truth Nicodemus has found. Could they have probably found a less controversial way to convey this? Yeah, maybe. But I can say that this wasn't intended to be the Disney "follow your heart" mumbo-jumbo it constantly gets written off as.

3.A Hearsay Gospel This point was taken directly from the referenced article. I'm choosing to address it not because it's a popular "problem" but because it's actually one I'd never seen before and I think it shows a gross misunderstanding of the inspiration of the Gospels and Scripture as a whole. This point posited that it's unbiblical to show Matthew and John taking notes because it undermines the Spirit-led inspiration of their writings. Except that it doesn't. The Greek word used when talking about this is more literally translated "God-breathed." Which is not the same as "God-dictated." If it were the latter (and what the writer of said article implied), then there would only be one Gospel account. That would be all we need because everything would be in it. Or, if there were still four Gospels (given that they were written with different intended audiences), they would all sound the same and have the exact same details about shared recorded events. But they don't. Because God didn't tell them, verbatim, what to write down. This is why there is variety yet harmony. This is why each writer has a distinct voice in the way they wrote. Because God didn't dictate; He led. There is a difference.

There is also the matter of the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars believe that Mark may have used Matthew's Gospel as a reference when he wrote his own because it shares so much in terms of content (93% of Mark can be found in the others). Does that make it less inspired? The obvious answer is "no" (or it wouldn't still be in our modern Bibles).

The episode most criticized for this point was s2 ep3, where a woman runs past Matthew and he desperately calls after her, "Healed you of what?" Therefore making it something he didn't personally witness that he wrote down. But here's the problem with this: that entire episode is based on one single verse from the book of Matthew: 4:24. Which, if you look it up, says only that Jesus healed many people. As any writer can tell you, not every note makes it into the final draft. Provided something like that did historically happen and provided Matthew did write it down, that doesn't mean everything he took notes on would have been in the completed manuscript later. Therefore: no hearsay.

Bottom line: what made it into their Gospels is still being presented as things they personally witnessed, and taking notes doesn't detract from being led to write or from being led what to include.

4.Unscriptural Script There are several points under this one, so we'll take them one at a time. --"House" vs "Business". This one is, once again, directly from the aforementioned article, but I wanted to address it briefly anyway. This is in reference to Jesus, at age 12, staying and teaching in the temple when his family had already started home. The author claims that "the Bible says, 'Be about my Father's business'" and claims that saying "in the house of my father" (as the show does) is Catholic-inspired and unbiblical. I don't know about the Catholic-inspired part, but I can say that it depends what translation of the Bible you're looking at. KJV uses the business wording. ESV and HCSB both use the house wording. (And if you want to mince accuracy, ESV and HCSB are both more literal than KJV/NKJV.) Unless you take only one translation as being the True Translation, then you can't say the line they went with is unbiblical.

-- Apparently certain things demean Christ, such as him practicing his Sermon on the Mount as opposed to it "being inspired" (see point 3 for the rebuttal of the second part). Except it doesn't. Because Jesus was also very human. Which people tend to forget when talking about this point specifically. It's wrong to have him practice what to say specifically. It's wrong to show him with a sense of humor. It's wrong to [fill in the blank; there are many of these]. Most of them amount to "it's a sin to be human." There are a lot of things that are a direct result of the Original Sin that are not, of themselves, sinful. It's not sinful to say something in a way people don't understand (so he practices to make sure people will understand what he means). It's not sinful to be nostalgic (its an acknowledgement of things that were good in the past). It's not sinful to show Mother Mary supporting Him (we all need earthly support in the form of other people; this is literally one of the purposes of the church!). Every single thing I've ever heard anyone say is "demeaning" is actually just portraying Him as every bit the human He became.

-- The first "arrest". Quintus wanted to talk to Him. He wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't imprisoned. Quintus gave Him a warning and let Him go. This does not contradict Jesus declaring it was not yet His time because it wasn't. He wasn't arrested. I don't know how many more ways I can say this.

-- "Nathanael couldn't have been a drunk because Jesus said there was no guile in him." Except the definition of "without guile" is not "sinless". The definition of guile is "deceit, cunning, hypocrisy or dishonesty in thought or deed" and many modern translations use the word "deceit" in that verse instead. Jesus is saying that he is honest and not a hypocrite. There's nothing about drinking in there at all. I'm not trying to call out this author specifically, but when I say that it's important to understand what words mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

-- John the Baptist. One of the points I've seen repeatedly is that it's sacrilegious for Peter to call him "Creepy John". I have to ask if these people understand that Peter called him that in anger and before he met Jesus. After that, it's a running joke along the lines of "remember when you didn't believe me" from Andrew. This is peak sibling behavior. That's all I can say about that.

-- "Matthew couldn't have been autistic because it's not in the Bible/ it didn't exist back them/ etc." I haven't seen this one in a long while, and I made a whole post about this way-back-when, but it bares repeating. The word "autistic" doesn't appear in the Bible in part because the word wasn't even coined until the 1900s. I don't know what else to tell you on that front. Since I've already made a post about this, all I'm going to say here is that it's important representation that is made all the clearly by the overwhelmingly positive response it received from autistic fans. Jesus called all sorts, the outcasts of society, the lowest of the low. And, yes, He calls autistics, too. If there's a problem here, that's all on you, buddy.

5. The Music This particular writer pointed out this lyric specifically: "Got no trouble with the mess you've been" and quite frankly I'm having hard time understand the problem with it because he doesn't come out and say it. It is, in fact, a completely true statement. God is not put off by our messes. We don't have to fix ourselves before coming to Him. Its also worth pointing out the past tense here: been. As in, He calls you out of your mess. You don't stay there. So I have no idea what the supposed problem here is; I only know that it's not one.

In general, I don't have a problem with people not liking certain styles of music. I do take issue, however, when anyone tries to assign morality to a style. Music is amoral. It can be used in immoral ways, just like anything else can be, but music itself does not have a morality. It doesn't have "mystic undertones"; it is in a style that you yourself associate with mysticism. If you don't care for the style, that's fine, but don't assign it a morality it doesn't have.

.

.

Know of something I missed? I certainly didn't cover every controversy so let me know and I'll let you know what I think of it!

[aropride]

i think theres a lot to be said about how marginalized men are oppressed based on both their marginalized identity alone as well as how their manhood and masculinity (or lack of masculinity) interact w it, & there's something to be said for how harmful radical-feminist hating men can be & how harmful anti-masculiity can be, and absolutely none of it is being said by using the word "misandry" and implying men are marginalized systemically based on their manhood alone

[atomicnerdbeing]

The parallel between the shot of Alison and Mike first approaching the house and them approaching in their old age is beautiful. In both cases, they pause to take it in, the place that will be their future and the place that holds their past and family. In both, their love for and closeness with each other is clear, arms linked or hands held. But the former shot is from a low angle, the house towering over them, and the latter straight on. The house has gone from being something that holds them in place, something they are constantly battling to look after and afford, to just an old home, which they're able to return to as often as they wish, a place they can love without worry. They move out but they don't move on. They have a usual room. Alison's snippet of conversation with the ghosts wouldn't be out of place in any episode. The house is still a home of sorts to them, the ghosts are still their family, they just visit it and them regularly, rather than letting the house define their life the way it did when they lived there.

[spectrumgarden]

So often I basically just want to post "hey this is something I experience, somewhat stereotypical autistic trait. Let me explain what it feels like" but then I overthink that it isnt worthy of sharing and I delete it all again.

[batemanofficial]

took a b12 supplement today and thought i was having a manic episode but nope. what i was experiencing is called 'happiness'

[unforth]

Actually, I really wish Tumblr as a whole was less comfortable using feminizing language for gay men, especially gay East Asian men.

[rainbowtvz]

*grits teeth*

i do not want to discourse here or anywhere anymore but it does kind of affect me as a transmasc bi person when i see shit that indirectly misgenders me and implies that bisexuality is an icky no good word and identity and you have to be bi and gay and bi and lesbian and bi and straight at the same time or support them or you're an evil stinky stinky terf like... hello where am, i

[chikinan]

lucy steelballrun makes me feel so conflicted because she's like the incarnation of the worst jojo's bizarre adventure writing qualities (gratuitous and exploitative) but also out of all the twist child heroes she is by far the best written the most solid the most effective and the most raw. which she would not be if it weren't for the way she's treated.

[communist-hatsunemiku]

i think there is a difference between finding certain features more attractive than others and thinking people are ugly. Like finding other people ugly is coming from a place of disdain and contempt for those people and its indicative of being an unpleasant and hateful person under the surface imho

[tomb-mold]

remember back in 2021 there were posts going around on here about that headline that was like ridley scott is upset that theres been no coverage about his new movie the last duel. and the gist of these posts was that people were like lol no one cares about it bc the plot centers on a woman being raped. you suck cry harder ridley. but like... did anyone even actually know what that movie was about? that it was basically a medieval court drama where a woman is forced to recount this horrible thing that happened to her in a very public way, and the two dumbass men involved making it about themselves bc to them it is a matter of stolen property and ego rather than this woman’s personhood being completely violated on multiple levels. and how its essentially a commentary on how rape cases are handled and the attitudes towards women bringing forth these accusations have not changed very much in the modern age. that was a pretty decent movie actually and handled pretty tactfully imo as far as these things are usually depicted in film

[purgemarchlockdown]

The temptation to vague about something in the milgram-confessions blog because its something thats bothered me for Actual Years about certain fandoms vs letting it go because when it is brought up its actually done somewhat tastefully and reasonably which makes me happy and this anon probably didnt mean it in the incredibly bad faith way I keep on seeing it be repeated so really Im getting upset over nothing.

[thebleedingeffect]

It's crazy how anxiety spikes will have me restless, unable to concentrate, and overall thinking irrationally, only for it to inevitably start coming down and I'm just exhausted afterwards..