Anti-Gay Pastor outed on Grindr.

You can find the details of this pastor at this link here. Short version, a vocally anti-gay pastor was outed for pictures of him on Grindr, a gay dating site. He has since resigned from his church, amid what I can only imagine is a lot heartache for him and his family.

This sort of thing leaves me really torn. On the one hand it seems obvious... don't simultaneously be against gay rights and cruise for a cuddle on Grindr. On the other...

I'm going to say this because I think I'm one of the few who can without being accused of having an agenda. This is a homosexual (or bi, I suppose) man who was hiding. The reason he was probably so loud about being anti-gay was due to self loathing and fear of being even suspected. In order to avoid being bullied, he turned to bullying.

Put shortly, I don't think this is on him. I think it's on the church. Not HIS church. THE church.

THE church created a situation where a man who (I'm guessing here) felt the need to be a teacher of the people, a counselor, a guide, a guy who very likely felt like he could help and wanted to, ALSO felt the need to attack people like himself in order to do so. How many hours of self-loathing and shame went into this guy's preaching? And then to still be so driven by the fact of who he was that he felt he had to put himself out there on Grindr...

The media will (and already is) calling him "yet another conservative hypocrite." The next pastor in his church may well call him an example of the "subversive gay influence." But I doubt he is either of these things, really.

This is a human being who was made to feel so insecure in his sexuality that he actually armed his closet. Who was made to feel so ashamed of who he was that he attacked others like him just to keep attention away. This man was simultaneously a victim and a perpetrator of a system that can turn people who do not fit inside the patriarchal sexual norm into their own worst enemies in a desperate attempt to belong.

Christians, this is not a leader gone bad. He is the perfect example of why we need to change the way we, as a religion, address sexuality. I honestly don't care if you believe homosexuality is sinful or not, that is not the issue here. Because even if it were sinful, if the way we teach about sin leads to be people living lies the way this guy felt he had to, then the way we teach about sin is WRONG. Full stop.

Why People Are Wrong about Black Widow

I think it's time to have another discussion about the Black Widow character from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and some uncomfortable truths she reveals about the more progressive side of geek culture. (Possible Avengers 2 spoilers below.)

Now anyone who follows my internet persona AT ALL knows that I am a pretty darn big fan of the entire media experiment known as the MCU, and that has always included Scarlett Johanssen's portrayal of Natasha Romanov. Like Hawkeye, Black Widow represents what seems to be an anomaly, a highly trained, but still undeniably human, member of a team that includes a super soldier, a rage monster, super-high tech armor, and an actual god. But unlike Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, Black Widow also is an anomaly in another way as the only woman on the team. This was naturally always going to make hers a character that would be placed under the microscope of pop culture scrutiny, but sometimes I wonder if that same scrutiny doesn't sometimes say more about us than it does what her character represents.

Now before I get started I do want to point out that this is NOT some kind of “oh, don't point that critical lens at things I like!” rant. The MCU has some definite problems, with a glaring lack of diversity being at the top of the list. However, I do sometimes worry if our habit of dissecting more diverse characters doesn't add to the problem, and it's something we should really think about as both DC and Marvel prepare to broaden their cast lists with Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther all about to make their debuts.

Ok, so back to Natasha. She's up against a LOT in these movies, and I'm not just talking about Chitauri bad guys. With no powers to speak of beyond expert level assassin training (more on that later) and all the above mentioned super-powered teammates she has, it would have been ridiculously easy for her to fall into the role of victim in waiting, or to even vanish from the movie. She is also played by Scarlett Johannsen, a legendarily beautiful woman even by Hollywood standards. While this is no doubt an aid in gaining roles, there is also a flip side of that coin, with many people refusing to take her seriously simply because she IS beautiful, and historically we have known that in a big budget action piece like Avengers, a beautiful woman is almost certain to play the role of damsel/eye-candy.

The fact that she HASN'T fallen into that cliché makes her all the more interesting. In each of her outings it is made more and more clear that any sexual behavior on the part of Romanov is a stunt, designed to get men to be a bit more stupid so she can do what she needs to do, and with each movie that comes out she has been sexualized less, as we her less and less from the perspective of those she is conning to the perspective of teammates and friends. In fact, based on revelations from the second Avengers movie I am starting to think that she may actually be asexual. We'll get back to that.

So how has she done under the scrutiny of the modern movie watching audience? Not too badly, as it turns out, all the way up until Avengers 2. It's taken awhile for the MCU to seriously turn up on the non-geek critical radar, but after the mega-hit that was the Avengers and the surprise thoughtfulness of Captain America 2 (both which starred Scarjo as BW in HIGHLY important roles) the shield of “just Summer Schlock” has passed, and the sole important female superhero (you're not there yet, Scarlet Witch) currently in the cinema was bound to get more than a once-over.

These are the things that our more progressive critics have revealed about themselves in discussions of Avengers 2 in general, and BW's character in it in particular.

1- We don't always watch the movies.

I suppose we should have seen this coming. People who have managed not to be particularly aware of the MCU up to this point are likely those for whom it was never going to appeal for reasons having more to do with taste than the treatment of women within them. And yet, I read one review (linked, at least for a time, on the film's wikipedia page) deriding the movie as just “action and boobs.”

Now, as a pretty darn hetero guy it isn't exactly a point of pride to say that had their been any gratuitous viewing of boobs or even cleavage in the movie I probably would noticed. I honestly can't recall any. Like I said above, the sexualization of the BW character has grown progressively less with each movie. There is no “just out of the shower” scene, no “pulling on the tight jeans” moment. (If you want one, there is one, but it belongs to Chris Hemsworth's Thor character, whose adonis like physique will show up like clockwork in nearly any appearance.)

This was a weak attempt at sight-unseen criticism. And to be fair, in most action movies with an actress like Scarjo, likely a fair assumption to make. But as anyone who has watched her character progression as the MCU has gone on can tell you, Black Widow seems to be the exception to the rule.

2- We focus on buzz words, not context.

We all have seen the uproar about the comments of Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner on the press junket tour, where they supposedly “slut-shamed” the BW character for sleeping with yet another Avenger. And yeah, out of context, WHEW! Those are some crazy bad statements. At first I just figured it was the long press-junket tour wearing on them, but the more I think about it, the more I think they were trolling their interviewers.

Yeah, BW has appeared in many of these movies and developed relationships with Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye and now Bruce Banner. But as anyone who has watched the films can attest, not a single one of those relationships were sexual in nature, and up until Banner none were even romantic. She was spying on Tony Stark, a friendly ally to Steve Rogers (even repeatedly trying to set him up on dates) and a close friend with Hawkeye (even having one of his children named for her.)

And yet, in every movie where she stars, what do reporters and geek bloggers ask about her? Are they dating? Do they kiss? Who does she love more and why? You can see hours worth of these interviews and the script never seems to change. It's like Renner and Evans are a couple of guys going; “For crying out loud, how many times do we have to say that WE ARE JUST FRIENDS!” and finally deciding to troll the questions when they're asked. Given how tight the cast reportedly is, it wouldn't surprise me, in the least, if they were irritated on her behalf.

But they used the word “Slut.” And our reaction was predictable, despite the fact that, given every available ounce of context, the word had to be sarcastic. Because if truly meant, it's WILDLY inaccurate. This was a condemnation of the way these movies are reported when a woman like Scarlett Johanssen is involved, and rather than joining them in that condemnation, we jumped on the buzz word.

3- We build up new heroes by tearing down old ones, even when old ones are in short supply.

A great example of this exists in another Disney property... the Princess Franchise. Remember when Frozen came out? Suddenly Tumblr, Pinterest, and the whole blogosphere were all awash with what an "empowered woman" Elsa was. But that wasn't enough. She had to be the "first" empowered Disney woman, for some reason, and suddenly every other "princess" was held up, scrutinized, and found wanting. Here was the REAL woman to look up to! Thing is... why? Ariel was pretty tough in her movie, even if she was boy crazy. Don't even get me started on Mulan and Merida. And yet, for some reason, for Elsa to be the true empowered woman, we felt the need to tear down those she would be compared to.

I adored Agent Carter as did most who watched it. And yeah, she's a game changer for the series. Hopefully Jessica Jones will follow suit in her new series. But it sometimes seems like the first person they have defeat is not their rogues gallery, but Black Widow. And since we want them to be great, the best, we tear her down.

In a time of High Superhero saturation in culture, there is a depressing lack of female heroes. But unless we can learn to value the new ones in ways other than lining them up in continuous comparison to their forebears, there will always seem like there was only one. It's okay to like someone more than Black Widow, obviously. But that doesn't mean you have to say she was just a sex symbol in order to do so.

4- We say we want complex female characters. When given them, we freak out.

Let's get to the big one, shall we? In Avengers 2, Black Widow exhibits a strong romantic attraction to Bruce Banner/Hulk, a feeling that is, apparently, reciprocated. And at one point in the movie Banner is there to rescue her from captivity. The buzzword police were set off again and the shouts of a strong character being “destroyed” began.

But was she? Black Widow has, to this point, been the most functionally invincible of the Avengers. She lacks the powers of some of her teammates, but choose a SINGLE opponent she has gone up against and been found wanting. In Iron Man 2 she cons a super genius with little difficulty, and finds said genius' rival and hacks into his systems with no apparent difficulty. In Avengers she takes out a squad of Russian Gangsters while tied up, goes head to head with the Viking God of Mischief in a battle of wits and wins, takes out Hawkeye in a straight up fight, and is the one who figures out a way to actually stop the infinite army coming out of the portal. She takes on the Winter Soldier in Captain America 2 with zero hesitation and pulls a called draw, holding him off for about as long as Captain America himself does. She's tough, she's capable, she's badass.

But as an another article pointed out, “strong and capable” is not a character, it's an archtype. A cutout. Every other Avenger, at some point, gets knocked down and is unable to get up on their own, and these are the true character moments for characters defined by their strength. Eventually, in order to really be a character, Natasha was going to meet something she couldn't just handle on her own. She's never helpless (even when imprisoned by Ultron, she manages to let the team know where she is and, in so doing, where Ultron is) but in the end someone was going to have to open her cage, and that someone got to be Bruce Banner.

Can we talk about that relationship for a second? Of all the available Avengers (a bunch of darn good looking guys, you might notice) she goes for the quieter of the geniuses and, also, the one who can't have sex. (Did you forget that part? In the Incredible Hulk, Banner starts to have sex with old flame Betty Ross when his heartrate jumps and he has to stop for fear of Hulking right then and there.)

She also, when making herself vulnerable to Banner, reveals her biggest personal shame. Not that she murdered a helpless person as a young girl, not the violence that has defined her entire life, but that, in order to graduate her training, she “volunteered” to have her uterus removed. This choice haunts her, makes her wonder if she is even a real person anymore. Again, it's not her infertility that haunts her, but that she CHOSE it for the right to murder people. It was a beautiful, moving, and painful character moment, a moment involving regret of a woman who, as a rule, regrets nothing. A moment roundly panned both for her being “damseled” by Banner and for not representing a proud push forward for fertility rights. BW's writers finally assumed that they had established her competence sufficiently to allow her to be a real character. And apparently they were wrong.

Do you see why this is frustrating to me? It's also worrying, because with the coming Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther movies, the world of comic book movies will be attempting more diversity than they ever have before in such a short time frame. I am as worried as anyone else that they won't be handled well... there are a LOT of mistakes to be made in the handling of such characters. But I also worry about the other side.

What if we are presented with powerful, flawed characters, but get too antsy with our progressive microscope and nitpick them to death? No one complained that Iron Man's character was destroyed when he was unequivocally saved from death by the Hulk in the first Avengers. No one felt the need to put a definitive status on Steve Rogers ambiguous love life outside of the movies.

So what happens when movies who are riding on characters that break that white guy mold are put up to the same scrutiny? If they are done well, but still get panned by critics who were too lazy, too buzz word driven, or too reactionary to realize it, do the movie producers then say, “Well, crap, we tried to make that crowd happy, and see where it got us? Back to the safe white guy stuff.”

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is perhaps the most social savvy product of our day, built around fan obsession and reaction. Our opinions matter. Should these movies be solid outings, then we need for them to succeed so that we will get more. Make no mistake, the entertainment world will be watching, waiting to see if the world of characters from pulp stands can be among the first to truly offer a diverse view of the world, not just in terms of gender but of race, nationality, and perhaps even sexuality.

I even think they have a good chance of sticking the landing. The MCU has its stumbles, but it's treatment of women from Black Widow to Agent Carter has been pretty darned solid. I just worry that even if they do succeed, despite all the history that says they won't, the same media that should be celebrating it will be too busy nit-picking to notice.

So much for the well-armed militia.

The United States has a very strong contingent of citizens who claim that unrestricted gun rights are vital for a citizenry that wants to protect itself against a violent and tyrannical government. Eventually, the brutality of police to be found all over the country, and large scale violence against protesters in towns like Ferguson and Baltimore, has to be their proof of concept, right?

I mean, I am pretty darned leftist. I prefer guns controlled to just floating out there. I oppose open carry laws, and think a person needs a darned good reason for a concealed carry.

But if you wanted to sell me on the idea? Point to Ferguson. Point to Baltimore. Show me the government doing to its citizens PRECISELY what you predicted for years, and while I'd still have an ick feeling, I wouldn't really know how to respond.

But no one is. I have yet to hear a single comment from the sizeable gun lobby to that effect. Maybe I've just missed it and someone could send me a link. But honestly, I don't think it exists. And I think I know why.

The gun lobby isn't actually about a militia to protect us against the government. It's about enticing middle to upper class Americans to spend a LOT of money on guns due to fear. Fear of Government is a decent selling tactic, but the GOOD one is fear of the folks we see on TV.

Fear of people of the lower economic classes. Fear of urbanites. Fear of people of color. Fear of gangs. Fear of thugs. The NRA and the gun manufacturers they support know that so long as middle to upper class America continue to fear such people, they will continue to sell all the high-end guns and ammo they have. Sure, the occasional "the government is coming for your guns!" can get a good Black Friday sale going, but it is fear of those other people who really keep sales going.

And so we probably won't hear much from people saying that things would have gone better for Michael Brown or Eric Garner if they had been armed. The same people who champion the righteousness of Cliven Bundy's armed stand-off with the feds won't be shrugging and saying that Baltimore would be saner right now if the protesters all had open carry licenses.

Because arming the common citizen against a tyrannical government is not now, nor has it ever been, the primary guiding star of the proponents of gun rights. Because if it was, they would be championing the protestors, or encouraging them to arm themselves. They would be crowing that they were being proved right as we speak.

And they're not. So whatever it is they're really about, it's not that. I wonder how many of them will notice.

If you haven't watched Daredevil yet, you should.

I know, I know. Typically I leave this sort of thing for a Saturday Ramble and don't link it, rather, I just leave it up so people who care enough about what I think about things to find it on their own. But I will be linking this post so people hear it from me straight... you really, really ought to watch Daredevil.

Now the fact that I like Daredevil is probably no big surprise. I'm unashamed about being a huge fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and so long as it keeps on its current winning streak of great storytelling, I intend to stay that way. But typically I just recommend it and move on. Here, I'ma gonna get a bit preachy about it, because this is something I want to see succeed.

Daredevil is, to date, a 13 episode tv series set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and produced by Netflix in collaboration with Disney/Marvel. It tells the story of Matt Murdoch, blinded when he was nine in  a freak accident that, along with removing his sight, enhanced his other senses to superhuman levels. Matt lives in Hell's Kitchen, a poor neighborhood in New York that is still rebuilding after the destruction of the Battle of New York, as seen in the Avengers. Murdoch is going into business with his friend, Foggy Nelson, as Defense Attorneys by founding the law partnership of Nelson and Murdoch. After they aid her as their very first client by proving her innocence in a murder trial, they are joined by Karen Page, who becomes the firm's secretary. Murdoch uses his enhanced senses and martial arts training to distribute vigilante justice at night, while serving as a lawyer by day.

So why should you watch it, given all the other superhero fare out there, beyond me simply telling you over and over again that it's good?

1- Tone: The MCU's dedication to Silver Age joy in their adaptations has provided a great counterpoint to the "gritty realism" of DC's movie efforts, but it has created a certain lightness in tone that could easily be written off to escapism. Daredevil, like other similar projects Netflix and Marvel have planned, deals with more "street-level" issues that wouldn't fit an Iron Man or Thor. Specifically, the big bad of the series, Wilson Fisk (brilliantly portrayed by Vincent D'onofrio) is brutally and ruthlessly pursuing a plan, not of world domination or destruction, but gentrification of Hell's Kitchen. In a world where you regularly see references to the new Gods of this world (the money for funding gentrification efforts is actually largely being taken from charitable donations to rebuild New York after the events of the Avengers) it reminds us that smaller, but darker, issues such as human trafficking and worker exploitation are still a thing... and provides a hero to tackle such problems, not just by punching them, but by tackling them in court.

2- The Women: There are four primary female cast members. Karen Page is played by Deborah Ann Woll, Claire Temple played by Rosario Dawson, Lady Gao by Wai Ching Ho, and Vanessa Marianna as played by Ayelet Zurer. It would have been SO easy for them to fall into stereotypical female traps, but instead each serves as full characters in their own right.

Karen Page was the most likely to become a simple stereotype... after all, the attractive secretary to the two uncorruptable lawyers who saved her life would almost write itself in a standard tv script. But Karen is far more, pursuing her own investigations even when Murdoch and Foggy are spinning their wheels, and often with more success. Though she does get damsel in distressed once, it cannot be ignored that of the three times in the series that her life is actively at risk, SHE is the one who acts to save it, not needing rescue, but allies.

Claire Temple is a nurse who finds a masked Murdoch bleeding out in a dumpster, and becomes his medic when missions go bad, which is often. There is definite sexual tension between her and Murdoch, but again, she is an ally, not a story convenience, saving Matt more often than he saves her. Rosario Dawson's acting chops have been lauded before, but here I feel she is truly outdoing herself.

Gao is a mystery of the show, the elderly runner of a Triad heroin ring and, outside of Fisk, the most respected member of the group, whom even the VERY deadly Fisk feels the need to show extra respect to, showing complete control of herself even as Daredevil brings the empire crashing down around her.

Finally is Vanessa Marianna, the only true love interest of the three and in an interesting turnaround, interested in the villian, Fisk, serving as a capable ally, pulling him into the public spotlight and hamstringing the attempts of the heroes to bring him down, making him more dangerous and aiding him in putting a painful past behind him, and shocking Murdoch when he realizes; "There is someone who loves Fisk, who would mourn his loss."

If you want better roles for women in the Marvel Universe, Daredevil provides the best step forward since The Black Widow in Avengers and Cap 2.

3- The Budget: When you look carefully, it's obvious that Daredevil came to be on a shoestring,  using stark set pieces and careful blocking to keep their production cuts down, relying instead on beautiful cinematography and sound to tell their stories, rather than massive special effects. In Agents of SHIELD, similar attempts led to an odd disjointed feeling between episodes, where the use of movie-quality special effects would mean a few talky episodes to keep price down. Daredevil, on the other hand, keeps a consistent tone and mix of words and action to deliver a great story that hides budget restrictions and delivers a product that is consistently good., even if it lacks the bells and whistles to be found in the movies.

So what, you might think? What that means is that Netflix and Marvel have found a way to keep stories relatively inexpensive to shoot while delivering a good product, meaning that if this model is successful, we can expect a far wider range of similar stories, ones that can take risks without risking making Uncle Disney pack away the movie and going back to safer pastures.

All of this to say, even if Daredevil doesn't sound exactly like YOUR thing, you should still try it. Let's blow up its view count and tell Disney/Marvel (and hopefully DC as well) that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing we are looking for.

Meanwhile, let's look forward to more Daredevil stories, as well as other projects that are slotted to end in a team up with him, including Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist, to form the team the Defenders.

I know I am.

A Pastor Shopping Guide for Atheists or the Otherwise Religiously Disinclined

I've seen it hundreds of times. A person who otherwise would have nothing to do with a minister suddenly finds themselves in need of one. Not for actual belief purposes, but to serve some other sort of purpose, like to perform a funeral for a loved one who wanted a Christian funeral.

The typical approach taken in this situation is; "It's all the same, anyway." So you grab whoever you can grab for the cheapest or the convenientest (totally a word) and then figure you don't have to worry about it. I mean, it's not like you believe in that God stuff, anyway, and so who cares what brand of God-drivel they spout, right?

Eh...

I can see the reasons behind such an approach and you do have a point, but this can also lead to some very awkward moments at family events, made all the more vexing BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING FOR IT. This is especially problematic at funerals because you find yourself in a vulnerable place, mourning a loved one, and then this guy is gonna start spouting at you. And suddenly, even though you don't believe a word of it, you find that it still has the ability to hurt you.

This sort of thing makes me angry every time I see it, and I often try to chastise the offending pastor for it, but the fact of the matter is that some Pastor's believe that they are actually doing their jobs in this way. It's sickening, but it is a thing that exists.

So while I understand that for my atheists, or other similarly religiously disinclined people, having to shop for a pastor for the ceremony you've been saddled with can be about as appealing as going to an all-you-can-eat buffet while suffering from acute nausea, here are some questions you can ask along the way to prevent picking someone who will make a situation that is already uncomfortable for you even worse. Remember, my assumption here is that you are stuck, for one reason or another, with needing a Christian Funeral, despite your own personal beliefs.

1- "Are you going to try to convert me?"  This is the big one. Ask it straight out and up front. You are burying a loved one, and what you absolutely do not need is some idiot using that vulnerability as an opportunity to bludgeon you into the faith. If they cannot give you a clear no, then leave. I am serious. If they vacillate on their answer AT ALL, go somewhere else.

2- "What Platforms does your church support?" There is far more to theology than a simple belief in God, and different people live their faiths out differently. You already know that you don't share a faith background with the pastor, but if there is some ideological ground you can meet on, then you are more likely to be able to relate to the pastor, and so maybe get some comfort out of what they have to say. Besides, if it turns out they support some platforms you really hate, why throw extra money their way to help them do it?

3- "Will you give a eulogy or a sermon?" This is a spin-off of the first, but important because some Pastor's can't tell the difference. The purpose of the eulogy is to aid in the fond, sad remembrance of the departed. The purpose of a sermon is to impart wisdom to the congregation. Wisdom is all well and good but when a Christian Pastor preaches to a crowd that they know is at least partially atheist, they often have trouble not slipping to evangelizing, and that is not what you need right now. You want a eulogizer, not a preacher. If your options are limited, and they waffle, tell them that no message is needed, and get a member of the family to give the eulogy.

Some other tips-

Churches aren't your only option. Contact local hospitals or hospices and ask to talk to their chaplains, who will have some experience in working with grief outside of a specifically Christian Context.Vet them like you would a pastor, but they are more likely to have the personality type you are looking for.

When the choice presents itself, with all other things being equal, choose a female clergy member over a male one. The nature of the beast simply means that of the two, the female is more likely to understand an outsiders position. We males still take a LOT for granted.

And finally for my believers... if you have an atheist loved one, I understand the desire to give them one more push towards belief through a will-and testatement left through a Pastor. I really do understand it... but don't do it. Pastors almost always go too far with this sort of thing, and leads to your loved one being hurt, rather than supported, when they are grieving your loss.

If you really want to aid them through a member of the clergy, give a message of your love. That's what they'll really need. For the rest, leave it to God. After all, WE believe that God will take care of them, whether they believe it or not.

Saturday Ramble- Honesty Might NOT be the Best Policy.

I'm a little over honesty these days.

I know the internets are ALL ABOUT some honesty. It's held up as the highest possible standard in all things. Politicians are scum because we know they're liars. People who believe different than us are scum because they lie about politics, religion, etc. Even if they've just been duped by THEIR liar politicians, clergy, etc, well, that just makes them sheep.

But just because we have all these lying liars around us doesn't mean we'll let them damage OUR integrity. OH no. We will say what we believe to be true and we will say it strong, we will say it proud, even if it is the unpopular opinion because THAT IS JUST HOW AWESOME WE ARE!

YAY HONESTY!

Phhhhhbt.

You've all seen it. The person on the internet who opens up a sentence with "Well, to be perfectly honest..." and you just KNOW that they are about to be an asshole to someone? The person who then does the message board equivalent of backpedaling with their hands up by making some kind of comment about how they were JUST being HONEST and GOSH I wish you people were MATURE enough to handle it?

Let's all have our moment of nodding our heads in knowing judgement of "that guy." And then let's smack ourselves on the back of the hands because what we SHOULD have been doing is nodding in shame of "us."

Because you do it.

You.

The one reading this. (And yes, that includes me.)

We have, most of us, been that person.

Oh, the words might have been different. You might have used the phrase; "Well, technically," or "Just playin' the Devil's Advocate here..." or "Inconvenient truth time!" or "Well, if you did your research," or "Hey, check your privilege!" but at some point you have been an asshole to someone on the internet, you have KNOWN that you were being an asshole, and your internal rationalization for it was that you were being honest.

YAY HONESTY!

This all happens because honestly, it's pretty darn easy to be honest in certain situations. But I fail to see what is so virtuous about easy honesty.

The guy who takes naked pictures of a woman and posts them online as revenge is being honest. These are pics of her, he's mad at her. Totally truthful and straightforward. The others who look at those pictures despite knowing how violating that is to her are not lying, either. They believe it is all okay. Because they like looking at naked pictures of women.

The person who takes the private information of someone else and posts it on-line (doxxing) to open them up to RL harassment is being real honest, unless they fake the info. And when they say that they cannot control what people do with that info? Also completely honest.

These are, of course, extreme cases. There are varying levels of assholery, from the merely malicious to the downright harmful. But nearly ANYTHING can be justified with honesty so long as you believe in what you are doing, and how much do you actually do that would need justifying that you DON'T believe in?


The truly crazy thing? Is that we KNOW this. Pop Culture is full of people whose leading trait is being "perfectly honest", from Lady Catherine de Bourgh in Pride and Prejudice to a whole freaking faction in Divergent, and one and all they are seen as HIGHLY annoying. At best, they are Cassandras, forever telling the truth, but never listened to.

And what purpose does it serve, in the end? Despite the pedestal that we have apparently set Honesty on, no one is walking about encouraging others to just believe what anyone tells you. We know that we live in a world of lying liars. So it's not like our near universal dedication to the truth as we see it (maintained by most people I know) has actually made us any more truthful.

Far from not properly edifying our society, easy Honesty ALSO doesn't do a great deal to win arguments from day to day. Name one time an argument has been won on the internet by a "harsh truth." Name all the facts, studies, tests, witnesses, etc, that you like, all Honesty like that serves to achieve is either reinforcing those who agree with you; "Hah, they haven't read that study yet? They ARE all uninformed idiots!" or getting the opponent to dig in for a fight. "Crap, they might have a point. Well, darned if I'M going to give in to THAT asshole..."

Now, my point isn't to just be a liar without shame. It's just that we should probably stop thinking of honesty as justification for what we know are crappy actions. And so, with no further ado...

PASTOR DAN'S EXAMPLES OF WHEN HONESTY IS HORRIBLE

1. When your honesty is serving as a justification to say something horrible to someone. Seriously, just don't. If you know you are being horrible, don't be horrible.







2. You know that little tingle you get when you know that what you are about to say is gonna make someone else feel bad but make you feel great? I don't care how honest you're being. Don't say it. Even if they need to be told it (and here I mean they need the info, not to be socially edified) let someone else do it. Because that right there is undeniably going to be a horrible thing to say.

3.  When your honest opinion means you get to treat an entire group of people as less than people carte blanche? That is undeniably going to be horrible. It doesn't matter if the group is female journalists, gay people, Republicans, or veterans, just keep it to yourself. No one else is going to benefit from it, honest or no.

4. When your honesty turns you into a message-board avenger. I get it, you see someone being horrible to someone else. It makes you angry, it makes you want to fight. But you know what? Like I said, you aren't going to flame them into another person, no matter how many after school specials have that effect on the starting antagonist. Feel free to give tons of energy to supporting the victim while IGNORING the horrible one and THEIR honesty.

5. When you know you shouldn't.

I feel like, most of the time, we KNOW we shouldn't say these things. Everything from the defensive way we post to the self-righteous indignation we muster afterwards SCREAMS that despite all of our honesty, we know that we are being horrible. And yet, we raise that shield high and scream our defiance because while everyone else is a lying liar or a blinkered sheep WE will have our integrity, or values, and incidentally, get to say whatever the hell we want.

Maybe it's time we stopped focusing so hard on being honest to others, in favor of, for once, being honest with ourselves.

Doctor, cure thyself.

Whelp, Holy Week has gotten the best of me, it seems. I'm pretty tired and not at my best, so I think before I tackle all these questions I'm gonna try and get some sleep first. Thank you for your concern and no worries, everything will be fine. Don't forget to be awesome to everyone, now, and don't let stuff drive you apart. I'm not mad, neither should you be.

More to come later.