Y'all the more I think about it, the more I am not convinced that the "villain reveal" in the latest #WandaVision is going to turn out to be a villain at all.
Over the past two days I have gone from "maybe a secondary villain but I still think there's a bigger villain" to "maybe not so much a villain as an chaotic neutral antagonist?" to "nah not a villain at all," what a ride. #WandaVision
(yes I do think there is A Bad Guy but also I don't think the Bad Guy will have much of a role to play in #WandaVision and won't really take center stage until Strange 2 because I still think the main villain of WV is grief.)
(I'm using the hashtag so people can mute #WandaVision tweets if they haven't watched yet and/or want to avoid theories. Just a reminder to everyone else tweeting about this show that you too can mute if you want and should hashtag regardless.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Been thinking a lot about this lately. I told a friend that as I break down what I was taught w/in a toxic framework, examine it for truth, & build from what remains, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but first I need to determine what even IS the baby.
I really don't believe this process is insulting or threatening at all to God. God can handle a search for truth. Saying "you can strip it down to the studs, but leave the foundation alone" assumes the foundation is good. You can't know that if you're not willing to examine it.
When you're buying a house, it tends to be a red flag if the seller says, "The foundation is good, but please don't inspect it. Just take our word that it's good." Translated, that tends to mean they know there's a problem that's too costly to address. They're scared of scrutiny.
If we're all wrong about SOMEthing, but none of us know WHICH things we're wrong about, then the convictions we hold/battles we choose require us to EITHER be willing to change our minds when presented w new/better info, OR willing to admit that we'd rather be wrong than change1/
The latter isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think we all have things we'd rather be wrong about than change our minds on. (Anything that requires faith w/o proof falls into this category.) But it's important to be honest w ourselves about how/why we hold these convictions. 2/
This isn't to say truth is relative. Truth is truth, whether or not we believe it. But we will ALWAYS have biases and gaps in our knowledge and incorrect conclusions we've drawn based on incomplete/inaccurate information. There's no way to account for all of it. 3/
A thing I try to teach my kids: Apologies should be about the person/s you hurt. Apologize for wrongs done to THEM. Don't inject your own intent/justifications into the mix. And ALWAYS accompany your apology w/action. How will you make amends? How will you do better next time?
- I was only trying to...
- I didn't like it when you...
- Do you accept my apology?
- Are you still mad at me?
- Do you forgive me?
That's not to say the person apologizing isn't ever also in pain; it's just not the time to center it.
An apology that centers the pain of the apologizer over the harm done to the recipient isn't an apology; it's a guilt trip. It's a *request* for an apology, disguised as an apology.
I should mention, this is why I keep talking about this. Because I know so many people who legally CAN'T.
How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.
Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.
I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.
Some Sunday thoughts coming at you on a Monday: While my church has been virtual since March, many friends' churches are meeting in person with messaging like "We strongly recommend masks, but won't require it," or "We offer a masks-required service and a masks-optional service."
At a glance, this seems reasonable - everyone gets to gauge their own personal comfort level with masks, and make their decisions accordingly. Except... I have a hard time reconciling that stance with literally any of Jesus' teachings about loving our neighbor.
Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself, according to thine own personal comfort level. If loving thy neighbor makest thou uncomfortable, thou art exempt."