Answer me this LGBTACDEFGers ...

Why is somebody, all of a sudden, "gay" if they're rumored to be dating (or are dating) someone of their own sex even if previous relationships were with the opposite sex? Isn't there a thing called "bisexuality" or even bi-curious (not exactly "bi" but just "seeing where it goes"/"experimenting")?

Gnu atheists, whatever the political stripe - if any, are just morons.

Christian movies

I was reading a thread dedicated to Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas on CAF (Catholic Answers Forum) and it made me think what makes Christian theme movies, for the most part, feel like very bad Lifetime Original movies.

These are what I've seen, so far: I thought Fireproof was decent at best; October Baby was quite good for what it was; Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ still remains the cinematic apex of the group besides Ben-Hur to me. Doubt, though not really a Christian film, is also a very good one. I haven't seen Courageous yet (made by the same director who made Fireproof).

I'll admit that I haven't watched many faith based movies so my criticism is more on narrow grounds than one based on a wider catalog.

But still, I have a strong feeling, that many who do make - either direct or script - faith based movies aren't all that talented. Why do so many directors who are, no doubt, very talented tend to be of the secular cloth? Darren Aronofsky, maker of Noah (roughly based of off Noah's Ark and not really Christian as well), directing talent speaks for itself, but he's an atheist (of Jewish background). I don't think John Patrick Shanley (Doubt) is religious even though Doubt is a rough snippet of his Catholic upbringing. 

Again, many of the faith based films that are being made today, if they aren't made by the Aronofskys or the Shanleys of the world, are cheesy - not intentional it seems - so I'm left to conclude that there is a lack of talent in front of the camera and in back. This upsets me because as someone who has much familiarity with movies that come out of Cannes, TIFF, Sundance - basically the more "raw"/"real" indie/Europa fare - I see the stark difference and it's telling. It could say something that I don't want to be true: That those who make such movies, as secular & liberal/progressive as they are, are just innately more talented in making movies than Christians who make things like Saving Christmas. It's like how certain races fare better in (certain) sports. Does this hold true, in the artistic department, for secular & liberal/progressive types? 

What's the deal? Why are most faith based films that I looked at seem quite horrible? Where are the directors, script writers and actors that can deliver a movie that's on the level of The Passion of the Christ year in and year out? The actors don't have to be Christian, but I do think it takes someone who knows the feeling of being an traditional Christian to write & direct a decently made faith based film -- oh and talent, as well.

It kind of reminds me of a discussion about the talent pool for USA soccer & classical music. I was reading that the problem that men's team did not advance as far as others national teams in the World Cup is because of the lack of talent. There is a somewhat strong narrative saying that other sports such as baseball, football and basketball "steal" athletes from soccer that might other wise excel at the sport. I don't necessarily agree, but I do understand where those who advocate this narrative come from. If only a few thousand that might look at baseball. basketball and football look at soccer instead at the age of five the talent gap would be shortened, so the theory goes. (This greatly reminds of the 1% vs 99% wealth distribution that has been touted ... and out of all the sports, soccer. Go figure.)

The same was said about the almost barren land of great modern day classical composers. Those that believed the narrative that many great composers, such as Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin etc, existed during their times was because music - classical to be exact - was the main "thing" to get into. The narrative continues that if many of the talents today, in various fields, such as computer technology (Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates) and movie making (take your pick from many talented directors) focused on making music - classical - instead we'd have more Handels, Beethovens, Mozarts and Chopins. Again, it's the "other sports 'stole' potential greatness for [insert field that is seeing much mediocrity]." I find this very interesting and even compelling. There might a grain of truth to it, or it might be more than that.

This also makes me think: Is it that movie making, a relatively new medium of art, is just more conducive to debauchery and the narcissism of the human condition? Sculpture and paintings (with writing, be it poetry or novel writing a close third) still remain, to my knowledge, the best mediums that can honestly portray religious themes. Many of the movies that I think are well-made have directors & script writers that, I think, are non-religious. Maybe this is a medium where secular & faith are rightly so divided -- that faith, for all its complexities and wonder, is much trickier to be cinematic, to actually "reach" to the audiences. It just seems that way to me.

Is it that film making might be an inferior medium to broadcast/show/tell a deeply human religious life and events? Or is that the religious who have directing & script writing interests just aren't talented enough to make a film that isn't a cheese fest and its narrative isn't "beating me over the head"? After all, movies tend to be two hours long -- not a very gracious length of time to fit in a script that is about 120 pages double spaced.

It's a complex issue with many factors and many potential theories.

I'm confused on why  this hasn't been addressed before by someone either in the industry (who is a Christian and is as talented as Darren Aronofsky) or someone from the outside looking in (not using the "Hollywood" term to include the mainstream fare that make up the lineup at your local theater).  

NYT : Millennials and the Age of Tumblr Activism

The heading sums up my generation succinctly, at least for this year and years past. As someone who has a tumblr page (see right side for link) I will have to say that tumblr is a place where activism is probably the strongest theme besides fandoms of "whatever floats your boat."

Read the article here.

In my words: My generation - the more political active ones -  despises hatred, bigotry, injustice and discrimination.  My generation loves their feelings & emotions; such things dictate almost everything they do.

It's Sorta Written In Stone So It's Not Really Debatable.

No That's what I read from two guys on two different subjects:

1. Late POTUS Reagan failed to help the LGBT community when AIDS became a national epidemic.
2. Blacks are given less quality roles in ratio when compared to whites due to racism.

For the first it was "it's been written and documented - go read yourself" and for the second "this is quite non-debatable."

It's sorta like retorting with "deal with it" or "we win, give up." There is little room for questioning because history has made up its mind. But -BUT -let's talk and question and change (read: forever change) institutional structures like marriage, healthcare, the military, education and our own minds in order to accommodate those who believe they are oppressed, were cheated and just plain butt hurt for whatever reason.

Oh, and if it matters, these two guys were homosexuals of your progressive  garden variety sorts.

I must be honest

spotting the bizarre existence of a butthurt progressive -- that fits practically every stereotype you might have of them, but in the most saddest way -- is somewhat gratifying ... because when I push their buttons, direct them a certain way, they mostly crash and burn.

Yea, I troll them. I have no shame in this because it exposes them for what they are (and I bet it does the same for me). I'm blunt in my delivery if I must be and I don't mind slinging a few ad homs at them because the ones I do are the hard-core butthurt ones. They're already lost for the most part so I sling away.

Using celebrities & movies to push an agenda.

SPOILERS

In the movie Still Alice the character Lydia (Kristen Stewart) brings up that her roommate is gay. Her mother, Alice (Julianne Moore), doesn't react negatively or positively; she doesn't seem to care either way. Now, I haven't seen the movie and I only know this tidbit because it was brought up on IMDb. The person that brought it up was, I guess, a homosexual or at least liked his own sex and appealed to the "we're people too" card. I'm not disagreeing with the poster on that. But here's what I read:

ever since i saw still alice i just can't stop thinking about the line where she said her roommate was gay. it was just so natural, like it didn't even make a difference. similarly, the way alice didn't react at all is important too and i think julianne moore may be on her way as well. i really think these two can do a lot for gay rights. i can definitely sense a shift in society ever since this movie came out. it seems like it's all downhill from here.

A poster shared skepticism ("It doesn't work that way.) and the OP pushed -

why not? i find her very similar to judy garland actually. she didn't pander to them. she treated them like normal people

One poster pointed out that Stewart is big with lesbians (but not with gay men, which is strange to me) saying it's possible.

All of what the OP said kind of confuses me.

What's weird is that the poster is obviously hinting to LGBT "rights." That's pandering -- giving them what they want -- marriage, adoption etc. I'm not sure of his experiences in the past and how he was treated, but I take that most gay people are treated "normally", like people, just that numerous people don't see homosexuality as "normal" yet treat such people with respect when they meet in real life. It's not like they a ramp to go up an incline surface or that people shift away from them when they see them. I also don't necessarily buy into stories that say that they were fired because of their sexuality. The Matthew Sheperd case was a lie. The waitress saying the coupe didn't leave tip because she was a lesbian was a made up story.

When homosexuals say they aren't treated like normal people they're, I'm taking a stab, talking about marriage most of all. Well, if I go up to my local parish and say that me and my best friend of the same sex wants to get married we'd be denied - not because we're homosexuals (which we aren't) but because we're of the same sex.

I know Mark Ruffalo is a proponent of anti-fracking. A slew of others are on the PETA train. No doubt gay "rights" are a pet issue to the movie industry. Out of all the three social issues I've mentioned the LGBT issue is the most vested in emotions - it's a very easy social issue to bandwagon on.

Whoa. Whoa. UVA sexual assualt case: Apparently truth doesn't win out.

Like I said in a previous post, IMDb is the gift that keeps on giving. Check below for the discussion about the UVA sexual assault case.

Holy shit.

An observation and a thing when it comes to movies.

It's rather bizarre seeing people who are skeptical of whatever modern trend and dive right into, in support, of a modern pet issue.

Say for example the very strong and passionate cult of "animals are sentient beings." I came across one person who didn't buy into that stuff then went all "the anti-SJWs are even worse than the SJWs on tumblr. I mean, the label 'SJW' is stupid - they need to label everything - and who can be against a thing like equality?! WHO!?"

Or when a person is convinced by the narratives of Brown/Ferguson riots and then doesn't see a celebrity as a compassionate person touted by, you guessed it, the media.

Inconsistency. That's what supporting in social "progress" and "justice" does to ones brain.

That thing when it comes to movies:

Someone says something critical of a movie/director/actor.
"Well that's your opinion."
Someone says something positive about a movie/director/actor.
"It's a fact, yo."

IMDb forums is the gift that keep on giving.

 Take a look here.

According to some IMDb posters  Selma isn't registering well, audience rating wise, because of racism and a fictitious thing called a "liberal agenda." Here's what they had to say:

The average IMDb is a middle-class white fanboy who doesn't care about social issues and resents any film that steals the thunder from the latest Nolan geekfest, hence their hatred towards Selma. Many of them are also right-of-centre and possibly resent the coverage of the police killings of black men and see Selma as part of some 'liberal agenda' to make them face up to their own privileges.

and (by poster zombieDANCE)

 I laugh because this is probably true.

and (by poster ibaaaaaad)

Racists always troll the black-centric movies without seeing them. Not worth reading into.

I doubt many have heard of this movie, Selma, so allegations for middle white class down voting it is rather ridiculous. 
 
Now it's interesting that both poster zombieDANCE and ibaaaaaad are homosexuals. The zombie guy practically talks in cliches (the guy's is indignant beyond belief) and ibaaaaad is a Muslim, if I'm not mistaken, who isn't as pathetic as zombieDANCE but still has his moments of "well that's just racist!" And he doesn't like the late President Reagan because of how he handled AIDS.Well, if your fellow "love is love"/You-just-help-who-you-fall-in-love-with" peeps wouldn't part take in anal sex and carpet eating (though not a way of getting AIDS, but still) you wouldn't have such a big problem with this horrible disease. Go figure.

"But I lo - "
"It ain't love."

A poster named Gracie

wrote this on AT (American Thinker) of an article trying to refute the popular notion that marriage is an unpopular option -

"I would be lonely than miserable" Too many married women, after working 8 hours, must come home to cook, help children, do laundry while their husbands "are resting" after 8 hrs work. It's just too much, so many women would rather have the peace and quiet and be single again. Single men/women have "friends with benefits" that solve other problems. Whether married or single, a women must look hard and chose whatever will be easier for her in the future.....

Now I'll say this: Not everyone is meant for marriage - some people are called to the religious life (celibacy) and some people just don't do well in relationships so they're single forever. Some never find a person of their opposite sex worthy of a proposal; some women never are proposed to. I've even met some who said their profession, mainly single teachers (male), was their calling and the students were, in some way, their "children." Their quality of teaching is their legacy which, hopefully, resides and influences some of their students.

Onto Gracie. She later comments on another poster's "my wife keeps the house clean while I work outside" asking "Is your wife a stay-at-home-wife or does she work?" Based on the above quote I figure she has issues with women working and doing house chores. I also take that she sees  marriage and everything that comes with it as more of a burden - almost like "Whoa is me for having breasts and a vagina with fallopian tubes that aren't tied (yet) - than "it is what it is."

Though just a couple of comments, I think these types of quick "insights" of a modern woman is telling. I know I'm being judgmental, but this mentality is just a turn-off and comes across as sad, confused, pathetic, lost and plain narcissistic.

Yelp: When Yelper's discuss health care. Hoo Boy.

This is the usual diarrhea of emotional "Well what's your idea?!" of panicky idiots.

Okay, all you Obama health care plan naysayers. Now is your time to actually make a valid point.

People who are pro healthcare reform have been saying that the systems available in France, Switzerland, and etc are better because of things like:

-Longer life expectancy
-Lower infant mortality rates
-Overall lower cost per person of healthcare
-No one is denied care

People who are against the Obama version of healthcare reform think that these countries' systems are somehow worse than what the US has now, despite the above listed evidence to the contrary. Okay, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, y'all need to be able to back it up. One thing we can all agree on is that the current system does NOT work and it needs to be reformed.

So, my question is: If France, Switzerland, and etc's health care systems are not good enough for you, then which country has the best health care system, in your opinion? Which country (or countries) do you Republicans think we should model our reform after?

For those who think that no country on the entire Earth has a health care system that is good enough for the US, then what the hell should we do then? Please answer this one with a super simplified version of your dream health care system, for the sake of quick reading. If we pick yours you can always expound upon it later with a full blown, many-thousands-of-pages policy.

And lastly, please stay on the topic questions and don't waste time nit-picking my wording. There are many other threads devoted to such subjects as who is or isn't denied health care in France, and whether Obama's plan can be called a reform or not, but this isn't the point here.

I repeat, the questions are directed at the anti-"socialist"-plan people, and they are thus: Which country has the best health care plan (all systems are flawed, pick the least flawed), and, if none, then post your ideas.

There's too much stupidity in the above post. I just wanted it to further exist in case the page gets deleted in the site's system. Instead of curing poverty, hunger, cancer, ALS, saving the whales, saving clean water or saving the earth from climate change it's saving all the those who can't afford (or just too lazy to do their own research on the services provided) health care. The only point the Rachel H., the poster that started the thread, listed I actually take interest in the cost. I do think the costs are rather absurd. The rest is too complex to get into.

All my family members and and most of my friends have healthcare. How, you may wonder? They either ARE union workers or held down jobs that had decent enough coverage. My uncle works for the state and total of both his children were $5 - it was the copay he paid when he went down to the insurance office for his youngest child. Those that graduated with me have full time jobs or have union jobs (teaching or construction). Some have health care plans through there corporate jobs. My aunt works two jobs (part-time) and due to this has 'okay' coverage (Aetna, though I'm not sure what exact plan).

I'm lucky because my siblings and I, before we found our current jobs, were on our parents health care plan, which was mighty awesome. Reflecting the times we needed urgent care and prescriptions and were graced with fine care, minimum co-pays and free doctors appointments (one of the many perks of being the child of a respected nurse) made me motivated to do well in school in hopes I too can find a job that made me privileged for such a health care plan.

Now how about those who aren't as lucky as you? I don't know. I'd say get a job(s) that offer decent enough health coverage. The rest is really up to genetics -- no heart disease, no thin veins, no high blood pressure, no cancer etc. Take care of yourself. Get your flu shot yearly. Medicaid is there if you're unemployed or fall below a a certain income line.

In the end find a good job that isn't a barista or an entertainer (if you get membership into SAG/AFTRA, which is union, then you should at least sleep at night). Seriously. If you manage to get become a professional athlete, like in the big leagues, then you're guarantee to rack up $4 million in less than seven years unless you're in the MLS (the average salary is around $200K) which should be enough to pay for most health care till you die.

Tumblr's SJW object to Sleepy Hollow

SPOILERS

There is underlying racism at work according to some posters on tumblr.

IMDb poser MonaRich sensed something wasn't right (them spider senses are tingling!), but thanks to tumblr she was able to make sense of this warning -

Killing off/undermining/sidelining all the POC and then having actual dialogue in the show about how the four white trees will turn black and that means they're extra evil and having Moloch rip off his white skin to reveal the scary evil black thing underneath after he had masqueraded as a pure blonde innocent Aryan prince. Like this *beep* isn't even subtle. It's about as subtle as Birth of a Nation. These new writers are trash.

HarveyMidnight pitches in -

A lot of people felt that it was -- what can we say, somewhat ignorant? -- for the season 2 writers to shove Irving onto the sidelines, push Crane further forward as a 'main character' making Abbie somewhat of a sidekick instead of a balanced equal to him, and outright replace Jenny with a white man who has almost exactly the same skill-set.

Considering Crane and Abbie are the two "witnesses" and not Irving, putting Irving as a secondary character is absolutely understandable. Even in the start of the show I knew Irving wasn't a 'main character' - though one of the 'main' secondary characters. As the season went on Irving still played a vital role; he was written rather effectively and it's nice role for any actor to take on - one filled with many complexes, emotions and trials.

I do not know what show they watched, honestly, but if I'd take a guess I'd guess out of all the episodes Abbie is more of the leader in the adventures than Crane. Maybe because the two actors playing the respective roles differ in height substantially some may come to the conclusion that Abbie is the side-kick.

If we talk about portrayals, Abbie, not only being beautiful, is shown to be amazingly resilient, self-sufficient, smart and resourceful; she is Crane's guide to the modern world and sometimes acts as a bigger sister to him. Crane, when he's met with a modern phrase or piece of technology that bemuses him, is written as the comic relief in a very endearing/charming way. Abbie is practically the rock in their relationship - she may not be flashy or as endearing as her male friend, but it is more of her show than Crane's, so far.

What makes this "Abbie is getting the shaft" issue more interesting is that posters are complaining that Abbie doesn't have a love interest. Yep. Before having a love interest for our heroes would've been deemed sexist in a couple of scenarios: If it was a 'typical' relationship with some 'hot' guy or if the relationship showed the woman in a more passive light than She-Male. I thought being a strong, independent woman who doesn't need a love interest to be happy was of grave importance to show young females across the globe that they too can be She-Males? Whoops.

There's more (Akeda is the name of an episode in S.2) -

I have so many complaints about Akeda. But this is the one that hurt the most and forgive me because this is heavy and I might not be the best person to voice this, but I gotta get off my chest cause last night it had me close to tears.

Media doesn’t exist in vacuum. So what does it say when a show’s only black male lead is sidelined for the majority of the season only to be cut down after twenty minutes of focus? What does it say when the white male lead, then turns around and offers his killer a “life of his choosing” rather than insisting he be brought to any measure of justice due to some clannish misguided notion of loyalty/empathy to his own kind when it is clearly unearned?

Goffman said that they chose to kill Frank because they wanted to make the war feel real. Well thats awesome, congrats, it feels real. Too bad the Cranes didn’t get the memo. Too bad the writer’s didn’t either.

The timing is so *beep* up for this. This was beyond insensitive. This hurt.
Because Crane is suppose to be a Hero. And Frank, goddamnit - Frank mattered. Frank was a friend. His life, his family, his sacrifice all mattered.

Except it didn’t and his one champion was literally injured, tied up, and effectively silenced so the Cranes’ ‘oh so interesting’ unconditional love for their murdering white son could take center stage. And as of right now, the narrative has rewarded them for that and that is really really gross. This show is gross, the writers are gross, the ‘hero’ is gross and I don’t see any indication that that is going to change though I really hope I’m wrong.

Italics: You're making me laugh, seriously. I'll say this: Quit your bitching you little bitch. I was more upset that J.K. Rowling said Ron and Hermione was more of an accident and thought of divorce for them (did she follow through?).

Note: It doesn't help that it seems that many of the fans of Sleepy Hollow fall under the SJW/OmurGurd/My-Feelings-It's-All-About-Emotions group. Like I said in previous posts, I wish my interests and hobbies were different. But they are not.

How Sleepy Hollow is "one for all."

 But in an insidious way.

SPOILERS

The television show made a commentary on gay "marriage." The character Ichabod Crane utters an "Is that considered acceptable now?" when the camera focuses on two men in a restaurant holding hands; Lt. Abbie Mills follows through that the view on homosexuality has changed since Crane's time and that gay "marriage" is being upheld by the Supreme Court - stating that it is a constitutional right with aid of more states legalizing it. Crane then corrects her saying "I mean gentlemen wearing hats indoors." 

A pathetic plug to ingrain that, somehow according to a bastardized interpretation of "all men are created equal", that same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right. The scene then finishes with Crane recalling that the Barron he trained under during the Revolutionary War was a homosexual - this plays the "I know one person who was a homosexual, who did good things, so it's no big deal" card. Besides the Barron, he admits to being exposed to homosexuality via Glee finale.

The show does a good job on updating Crane on modern things - credit cards, mobile phones, modern dress, tax, pastries - but this "update" was out of left field. The setup seemed awkward. 

What makes it even more insidious was the layout for this very scene. In the episode before this, there were dialogues about marriage, to further explain the background of other characters. There was talk about marriage being a business to fortune and marriage being something special - more the love between two people than anything religious.

The only things that were shown as remotely religious, at least in the realm of the superstitious, were the usual things: churches, possession, purgatory, a priest getting his head twisted 180 (killed); another priest getting decapitated (this show kills of priests rather inhumanely), using salt, crucifixes and rosaries as weapons to walking evil. In other words cliche after cliche. All the showcase one has seen before if they were remotely interested in either tv or film. There was no actual talk about marriage having an ounce of religion in it, though I assume that the character of Ichabod Crane isn't religious due to his "science over the superstitious" line when Mills urged him to make a wish before he blew out his birthday cupcake.

Overall the show is very witty, but when I reflect on his gay "marriage" scene it reveals how inconsistent the writers are in their own views (more libertarian than anything since the Constitution is at least mentioned once every other episode). It's basically a show that plugs in modern interpretations of the constitution.

I'll update this post once I find the part where the 2nd amendment (gun rights) was commented on.