IF you haven’t gotten sick of thoughts about Phil Robertson’s comments about homosexuality, read this. It’s lengthy but imho absolutely spot on… since my short rant didn’t completely express how I feel.
All posts by sonworshiper
Doubleplus Ungood Thoughtcrime
For the sake of future celebrities, CEOs, and spokespersons, I have a risk management proposal. I suggest the following application for anyone in a public position:
1) Do you support same-sex marriage and consider same-sex sexual activity morally acceptable?
Yes? Continue to question 2.
No? Please sign at the bottom and turn in the form.2) Do you intend to positively advocate, in the form of advertisements, announcements, or personal interviews, for same-sex marriage and activity as well as the LGBTQ community?
Yes? Continue to question 3.
No? Please sign at the bottom and turn in the form.3) Are you free of the influence of any deeply held personal beliefs?
Yes? Congratulations, your application is complete.
No? Please sign at the bottom and turn in the form.I, the undersigned, accept disapproval for consideration for this position through no fault of the employer based on the above.
Sign: ___________________
Based on recent events, tolerance is not enough. Acceptance is not enough. Only full-fledged outspoken public support will do. Anything else means you’re a homophobic bigot.
If your pasta or fast-food company isn’t making ads for same-sex couples, expect questions. Because pasta, chicken, and every other product on the market is all about the same-sex marriage debate. If you’re a star in an ongoing reality TV show and you express an unapproved but entirely expected opinion, prepare for indefinite suspension.
Corporations are willing to make millions off you in the short term, while cringing on the inside saying, “Lord, please let them not get asked about gay marriage today so we can keep raking in the cash.”
But eventually, the disgusting hypocrisy of such corporations might cost too much, making even huge short-term gain unprofitable. Thus, the litmus test err application I have provided above.
The message is clear. There is an unwavering standard. There is no acceptable form of dissent on this issue, no expression of disagreement respectful enough, no divergence from the correct position:
You must not think ill of homosexual activity. You may not speak ill of it. Your mere acceptance only buys you time until you are caught expressing homophobia. Your tolerance is allowed but will not be returned.
Homophobia is thoughtcrime; violators will be prosecuted.
Only in the court of public opinion.
At least, for now.
See what Phil Robertson actually said. Crass, yes. Hateful, no. Homophobic? Not at all, unless we redefine the word.
There and Back Again
This morning, my wife and children joined me in the earliest showing of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. The important question, the first one my friends asked: “Was it worth it?”
Yes, Precious, yesss…
Smaug fixed much of what I saw as flaws in the first film.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but An Unexpected Journey was certainly not what I expected. The emphasis on humor, the frenetic pace from one seemingly unconnected peril to the next, and the adventures of Radagast and his woodland creatures… it wasn’t just the unconventional framerate that had my eyes rolling. That said, we saw Unexpected in 3-D, and we are not fans of 3-D to begin with, so that skews my perception a bit. And the Rings trilogy set a very high bar.
From the first few moments in dingy Bree’s most famous inn, to the familiar chase across lush fields toward refuge with pursuit hot on their heels, to the lofty spiraling underground architecture of the dwarves… this felt like home.
Jackson does a wonderful job transporting viewers into a variety of settings across Middle-Earth. Just as in the book, there are details throughout with no real explanation given other than that this is a fantastical and mysterious world. There’s fan-service as well, or perhaps Jackson is letting us see his own self-directed fan-service. It’s clear he loves his work.
The Tombs of the Nine Ringwraiths? Who doesn’t want to see that? Let’s throw that in.
Exploration of Dol Guldur and hints of the upcoming conflict of Lord of the Rings? Why not tie it all together?
Legolas joking about a hideous dwarf boy named Gimli? Heck yes. Everyone chuckles, an inside joke meant for all to enjoy.
Freeman’s Bilbo is magnificent and believable, and Sir Ian McKellin is incapable of disappointing audiences. In fact, everyone gets to show off some awesomeness. Gandalf goes toe-to-toe with dark forces; Legolas and new addition Tauriel the strong female character both engage in orc-slaying that is literally beautiful to behold; dwarves put the smackdown on several foes; even Bilbo gets his stab on not once but several times.
And then there’s Smaug. Oh, he’s a beauty. “Truly the tales and songs fall utterly short” of his magnificence. It’s fitting to worry when a main villain is pure CGI, but if anyone can pull that off, Jackson’s a good bet. Smaug comes across as transcendent, so above the hobbit burglar and his dwarf companions, so without fear… until they push the right buttons.
There were a few moments I wondered what the dwarves were thinking. Their grand first plan to thwart the dragon isn’t really explained; suddenly it happens and you realize, “Oh, that’s what they were trying to do, I guess.” It leads to some great visuals of an enraged dragon and the destruction in his wake, but that’s about it.
Also, if you haven’t heard, it ends on a cliffhanger. People are still surprised by this. The book has been out for a while now, and Lord of the Rings makes it clear certain people survive, so there’s a limit to the suspense in a few cases. Spoilers: Legolas does not die in this movie. Neither does Bilbo. More spoilers: They don’t die in the next movie either.
Come understanding that the story won’t be over when the credits roll, and you’ll be fine — and fans will be in rapture from the start. Jackson throws wide the gates and waves us in to enjoy the wonder and splendor of Middle-Earth. I love being there; I can’t wait to go back again.
Fat Talk
Reblogged from my fitness-related blog to reach a wider audience here:
If your Facebook friends are like mine, your feed probably fills up with posts from Upworthy, whose goal it is to post meaningful content into social media. I generally like their offerings, but this one about women got my attention.
It’s probably worth a view, but here’s the short version:
A store is set up to sell clothes, and women are invited to check out the wares. There are signs around the store and tags on the clothes which reprint some of the terrible comments these women have made about themselves, stuff like “I look good from the neck up, #cow” and “you’ll look like a whale in this.” Some of the women appear offended for a moment, but then they realize, “OMG those are things I’ve said about myself!” Everyone talks about how they should think better of themselves, and they all grow as a result of the experience. Down with fat talk!
That’s all well and good. I know this video speaks to an all-too-common experience for many women.
What concerns me is that “fat talk” is pretty much acceptable anywhere in our society – so long as you’re not an average healthy woman making fun of yourself. When the target of the fat talk is an actual overweight person, then it’s open season. There are chuckles, smirks, judging glances, open stares. Some people at least have the decency to cover their mouths and whisper to their neighbor, as if covering a cough or disguising something unpleasant. But the laughter that follows is telling. It’s not unpleasant at all, it’s quite fun for all involved.
Except for the woman or man being made fun of.
“You wouldn’t say this to someone else,” the video declares. But the problem is, many people will say these things about someone else, just not to their faces. I’m not sure how that’s better.
But who cares about the overweight person, right? I mean, they’re already a lost cause. Let’s worry about the healthy women who have self-esteem issues, and let’s get them to stop saying bad things about themselves. Or so goes the implied logic.
I disagree. If shaming oneself is a terrible thing – and I think it is – then tell me: How can it be acceptable to heap shame on someone else?
Yes, let’s end “fat talk.” Let’s start by putting an end to finger-pointing, judgmental giggles, and disdainful looks.
That’s a worthy effort, to this reader.
What do you think? Is our self-inflicted “fat talk” a problem as described in the video? What about when it’s directed at others? Could this be, as my wife believes, a good first step in getting away from shaming others? Let me know how you feel in a comment. And if you agree, share this message with that video.
Wisdom From A Bear
Good reminder of some life lessons from an unlikely source.
What's in a Name?
Last night over dinner, I spent some time teaching my 3-year-old son how to headbang.
Ok, it wasn’t a good mosh-pit style thrashing. He bobbed his head to the music more forcefully than he usually does. And he started singing with me, trying to sound out the words a couple beats after I sang them.
His name means “praise,” and he has been actively interested in music as long as he’s been expressing a personality. The Wifey and I chatted about how interesting it is that he reflects his name, or that his name reflects his personality. Sort of a chicken-or-egg thing. We’re not sure which it is.
We’ve always been very selective about our names for our children. Each time, we discussed and weighed options until we knew we had the name that was exactly right.
The Wifey knew for certain what she wanted to name our firstborn before she even met me. She had a promise from God that she would one day have a daughter with a particular biblical name. When everyone else was positive our first was going to be a boy, Wifey held on to that promise (and a couple other indicators) and knew it would be a girl.
Now 14 years old, our daughter sometimes acts a lot like a boy, so maybe that threw everyone off.
Her name means “bee,” and she’s our social butterfly, flitting from one group of people to the next. Living in the military means making new friends and moving away from others, and our kids have had to adapt to that. But the Bee is the one who always comes home with a list of unfamiliar names and relationships – “Oh, Jonny is the brother of Alicia, she’s the sister of Amara, the one I was hanging out with when I met Charlie, the kid across the street that knows Thomas, Matthew’s friend that Jonathan met yesterday at the park when Hailey came out.” All of it stated matter-of-fact, like duh, why don’t you guys know all this yet?
Our 12 year old son has two middle names, one which means “watchman” and one which comes from a biblical reference for a tribe of Israel who paid attention to things going on around them and thus knew what God’s people ought to do. And sure enough, he is our details-oriented, wide-eyed, “how does it work?” little scientist. He’s into studying rocks and electronics. He watches all the educational shows on NetFlix to figure things out (Man vs Wild is a current fave, and he has built his own survival kit). He builds makeshift machines with the spare parts he collects from disassembling devices.
He took apart his grandparents’ VCR when he was 1. We were there around Christmas, and he was crawling around just doing his baby thing while we visited and chatted. Then we looked up and realized he had VCR parts in his hand, and the front of the VCR was off. He also did this at my parents’ house too, except this time it was unscrewing a wall fixture with… we still don’t know how he did it.
I guess he watches for when we’re not watching, too!
Then there’s our “middle” boy, 8 years old, whose name means “Justice.” Like most middles, he is keenly attuned to any sense of unfairness. If someone gets something, then everyone better, or else we’ll hear about it. He even enforces this standard when it’s to his own detriment, because he’s so passionate about fairness. I’m sure we tried to teach him equity, fairness, and so on. But we never made it a bigger deal than everything else. That’s just how his personality has turned out.
My name, too, has been particularly appropriate. King David was the psalmist of Israel, and more Psalms are written by him than any other. I took eight years of piano lessons, but what I learned most through all of that is how to let the piano “speak” for me, how to sit and pour emotion and feeling out through the keys. My mother would relax in her recliner and listen to me play for hours. She told me more than once how appropriate my name was, and how much she hoped that I would use music to bless others and minister for God just as King David had.
So what’s in a name? What power does a name have over the thing it represents, if any?
My wife posed this question yesterday as we talked. “Do you think God helped us choose names that would fit their personalities? Or do you think God met us in the names we chose, and their personalities developed to fit what we spoke over them?”
I’m not sure. Of course, maybe it’s all coincidence, and it just worked out that way.
Do you know of a particularly appropriate name? Have you seen how names reflect personalities, or vice versa? I’d love to hear about it in a comment.
Individually One Flesh
My wife posted some thoughts about the strain between being “one flesh” and remaining an individual. I’d love to hear what you think!
100 Followers
I know 100 followers is weaksauce in the world of blogging, for people trying to market themselves or get their voice heard. I’m not out to do that (yet). I’m just having fun with a place to rant and/or interact with other people. I like seeing what other people think, and why they think the way they do.
I still count it a special privilege that 100 people out there across the Internets have clicked buttons to become followers of my blog. Those clicks are whispers of affirmation and encouragement from someone not called Mom, in the moments when my hands hover over the keyboard while I ask myself why I’m wasting my time on this “writing thing.”
It means a lot.
So here’s a huge THANK YOU — err, wait —
There we go. Huge thanks to Erica for taking the time to click ‘Follow.’
Erica is clearly a fan of BioWare’s Dragon Age games, and her blog reflects that. But she also runs a Gamer’s Store through Amazon that markets video games on multiple systems, comic art, comic books, and graphic novels.
If you’re a fan of DA at all, you’ll find her posts on builds and talents interesting. It’s been a while for me since I last played DA 2, but I quickly found myself remembering the conflicts and twists of that game with a smile.
Thanks, Erica!
D&D Next: Skills
“I’m going to need to have you start rolling dice on camera…” – My online DM (who clearly has trust issues)
A few weeks ago, my friend and I started playtesting D&D Next in order to set up an online group that he could turn into a podcast.
The first session involved character creation, a couple combat challenges, and a couple skill challenges. I posted two blogs about the experiences (and one on my writing blog, concerning character backstory). Since those first posts, we played through another session, with mostly RP and a skill challenge.
First, I haven’t seen D&D Next refer to anything like skill challenges. There isn’t even a list of skills on the character sheet, so “skill challenge” is a misnomer in the first place.
Next – in my limited experience – appears to move away from non-combat encounters. But there are still ways to create them if desired, for situations where one simple roll of the die does not capture the complication or multifaceted nature of solving a crisis, or the length of time it might take to get through an ongoing series of events requiring the hero’s intervention.
The DM Guidelines draft does break down common tasks under the applicable ability, with basic descriptions and appropriate DCs to accomplish the desired task. For example, Strength has entries for Break an Object, Climb, Jump, Swim, and examples of Improvised Tasks.
The entries under Climb are “scale a cliff with plenty of handholds,” “climb a rough stone wall,” “climb a sheer surface with scant handholds,” and “climb an oiled rope.” Improvised Tasks include “push through an earthen tunnel that is too small,” “hang onto a wagon while being dragged behind it,” “tip over a large stone statue.” and “keep a boulder from rolling.”
Each ability has an Improvised Tasks section, as well as how hazards might affect failed checks and what sort of requirements the DM might choose in order to even attempt an ability check. (Strength might require firm footing, for example.)
None of this feels like a complete rewrite of 4E. The descriptions look very familiar. However, skills are absent as the middleman between how well your ability helps you succeed (or not) at a given task.
How did this play out?
In our sessions, when I normally might ask for a “Sense Motive” or “Insight” check, the DM simply said “Give me a Wisdom check.” If something involved sneaking around or crafting highly technical gear-work devices, we went to Dexterity. (My character’s background includes training under gnomes to craft intricate mechanical crap.) The old terms and names of skills are a helpful jargon for players to express what exactly they’re trying to do, and for DMs to determine which ability to use.
It was a bit frustrating to see what happened when I didn’t have a bonus for a given check. At one point I rolled a 14, which was under the moderate DC 15 challenge. That implies that 75% of the time, the character would fail at any task related to that ability. The DM and I chatted about how skill checks are meant to be difficult, and no one is supposed to win all the time or else what’s the point? Also, I recognized that a party of one is going to bring inherent weaknesses.
Plus there was the quote at the top of the page, for when I rolled a 20 followed by a 19 at the beginning of the night, for checks with no inherent character bonuses. So it’s not impossible to “win.”
In order to succeed as a party, the group of players might want to take some time prior to character creation to figure out which character will have which strengths. Then again, that can create unique challenges and opportunities for creative solutions to problems.
But perhaps it takes away some of the skill tunnel vision players get in 4E:
“I want to use Diplomacy to negotiate the harsh terrain and survive the bitter winter in the mountains.”
“You can’t use Diplomacy that way.”
“Uh… how about History? Or can I get an Insight check on the storm?”
Lore Have Mercy
Though skills are gone, characters now have Lore to cover areas of specialized knowledge. Any Intelligence check for an area in which the character possesses lore will net a +10 bonus. The types of Lore are broken into:
- Cultural
- Forbidden
- Hobbyist
- Magical
- Military
- Natural
- Planar
- Political
- Religious
- Trade
I won’t go into exactly what’s covered by each, for space and time considerations. The guidelines describe specific examples, like Military might cover fortifications or tactics, and Natural might involve the flora and fauna of a region or the usual weather cycles in an area. But you can imagine the +10 bonus makes it a player’s priority to figure out how to fit the square peg of their available lore into the circular hole of a given challenge.
How this played out:
When a situation called for making a decision or choosing a course of action, I often sought to use Lore to aid me in picking a right path. For example, my character found himself pressed for time and in need of supplies and assistance in order to (hopefully) construct a number of devices for a buyer. I was able to use Trade Lore while looking through merchant’s wares in the market to find what my character deemed a competent craftsman. And I used Cultural Lore to get a good idea on how auctions of large shipment of goods were conducted, so that I could avoid a time-consuming and more expensive process. My character was able to skip some layers of market bureaucracy and go straight to the source of supplies to haggle.
Still, the uses for lore appear fairly narrow. Hopefully that plus the shift away from lengthy skill challenges will keep lore from falling into the tunnel vision trap of highly trained skills. Clear communication between player(s) and DM will help.
I see some interesting qualities to the system, and I did find myself having to rely more on imagination to describe intended action instead of the crutch of “I do a (fill in the blank skill) check.”
I look forward to seeing more of it. Sadly, my character was in a bit of a pickle at the end of the last session. That will be my next post, but as a spoiler, here’s this quote from my DM:
“Oh man. Well… that will be interesting.” (sigh) “I made it clear – so very clear – that this was a lawful city.”
Pasta Politics
So there’s trouble boiling over in the world of noodles.
The chairman of Barilla Group said there’s no plans for the company to have same-sex family pasta ads. His comments are attracting lots of negative attention, and his apology is viewed as hollow and insincere by some.
To which I ask, do we need same-sex family pasta ads? I understand debate on marriage rights, on legal benefits, on laws that discriminate. I understand frustration with how the LGBT community is treated in certain places and certain circles, and outcries against violence. I am outspoken among my Christian friends about the vitriolic and disproportional manner in which the church in general responds to homosexuality. I even argue with folks like the Southern Baptist Convention concerning their policies for chaplains in the military, delineating which service members defending our country can receive ministry and care from a chaplain and which cannot. So while I am probably considered no friend to the homosexual community due to my faith, I still fight for them in several ways.
But this one I just don’t get.
It’s pasta.
Is there gay pasta and straight pasta? Wait, don’t answer that. Yes, there is straight pasta.
But is pasta the battlefield on which issues concerning homosexuality should be fought?
Is there an activist watching TV somewhere, checking off companies that include a same-sex couple in at least one ad? Is one ad enough? Or do you need two?
In a minute, I’m going to drive my Ford minivan to band practice. I’m going to play a Korg piano. The whole time, I will be paralyzed with fear, because I just don’t know if Ford or Korg have ads that show non-traditional families and same-sex piano playing!
I mean, I look around the room and wonder what other bastions of advertising prejudice I might be supporting. I have a Logitech mouse and I’m typing this on an Alienware laptop. Do they have same-sex ads showing a couple using their Logitech products? Are there ads for homosexuals using Alienware computers?
Do there need to be?
Come on. This is Chik-fil-A all over again. And we know how that turned out: a tidy profit for the “purveyors of hate.”
I’ve eaten at Chik-fil-A. I’ve eaten Barilla pasta. I’ve tried other places and similar products. At no point did I find myself exposed to hatred, nor have I been motivated to look down upon the differences of others.
Sometimes a product is just a product.
Fight the battles worth fighting.