#polemics

Trigger Warning: This content contains discussions of sexual assault, which may be distressing for some readers. Please take care of yourself and seek support if needed. If you feel uncomfortable, it's okay to stop reading.

As I wait here for my partner to finish her therapy session, I want to delve into the topic of still liking a character despite allegations against the actor/actress playing the role. My girlfriend and I hope that this discussion can help others who may be struggling with similar conflicts.

Before we dive into this topic, I want to provide some context. One night, my girlfriend stumbled upon a show featuring a character named Xavier Thorpe. As an artist herself, she felt a strong connection to the character and used art as a means to cope with the challenges in her life. However, when allegations emerged against the actor who played Xavier, my girlfriend's beliefs were challenged.

It's important to note that my girlfriend is a survivor of sexual assault, and supporting the alleged victims felt like the only moral choice. However, even with this knowledge, she found it difficult to hate the character of Xavier. This caused her to feel guilty and question her own values.

In today's world, celebrities and public figures are constantly under scrutiny, and accusations ranging from minor misdemeanors to serious criminal offenses are common. When such accusations are made against an actor who portrays a beloved character, fans may struggle to reconcile their love for the character with their feelings towards the actor. However, it is possible to still like a character even if the actor who portrays them is accused of something.

First and foremost, it's important to remember that the character and the actor are two distinct entities. The character is a creation of the writers, and the actor is merely bringing that character to life. The actor's personal life and actions do not necessarily reflect the character's traits or beliefs. For instance, Xavier Thorpe's personality, beliefs, and background were created by the writers, and the actor merely portrayed those traits on screen. Therefore, the person who played the character isn't Xavier, just as Xavier isn't the person who played him.

It is possible to appreciate the character for who they are without condoning the actor's behavior. The character and the actor bring joy and entertainment to people's lives, and it's possible to separate the two and enjoy the character without necessarily supporting the actor's personal life. One can appreciate the skill and talent that the actor brings to the role while disapproving of their personal behavior.

The issue with approaching this sort of situation is that we often view it through a binary lens, where things are either black or white, good or bad. However, the truth is that there exists a broad spectrum of shades of gray, a vast continuum between what is considered good and bad. It is perfectly acceptable to remain impartial, to refrain from blindly accepting everything we read on the internet.

Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge that accusations do not necessarily equate to guilt. Often, the media and the public are too eager to pass judgment based on sensational headlines, without allowing for all the facts to surface. It is crucial to hold off on making a verdict until thorough investigations have been conducted and the truth has been ascertained.

In recent times, individuals have been subjected to condemnation for their past mistakes, regardless of their efforts to express remorse and make reparations. The cancel culture has created a climate where forgiveness, personal growth, and redemption are increasingly difficult to achieve.

In conclusion, while it can be challenging to reconcile one's love for a character with an actor's accusations, it is possible to separate the two and appreciate the character for who they are. By reserving judgment, recognizing the impact of cancel culture, and acknowledging the joy that the character brings, we can continue to enjoy and appreciate fictional worlds and their characters. At the end of the day, one's love for a character should not be diminished by an actor's actions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that it is perfectly normal to grieve and experience deep emotions during difficult times. If you are struggling, I encourage you to seek support from trusted individuals such as friends, family members, or even professionals who can help you process your emotions.

It is also important to look out for those around you. If you know someone who may be going through a challenging period, simply being present and listening to them can be incredibly helpful. They may not feel comfortable reaching out for help or may not want to burden others with their struggles. Therefore, extending a helping hand and showing that you care can make all the difference.

Lastly, I would like to address the issue of people leaving unpleasant comments on the works of creators who continue to publish content related to a certain individual. To those who have chosen to condemn this person, I urge you to refrain from harassing those who still wish to appreciate their character. Cease from spreading hateful messages on their creations and allow them to enjoy what they like. It’s important to remember that harassing those who still appreciate the character is not productive or respectful. As it is likely that they are already aware of the allegations if they are a part of the fandom, and they may not care about your opinion on the matter.

logan-smarter-than-you-sanders:

Okay listen, it’s really not, I don’t know what Christains you are talking to, but clearly not very many. This is a HEAVILY overgeneralized my dude, majority of Christians, their end game is to love people, while there are plenty of them who take the Bible and God’s word and use it in a twisted and corrupt way, but those who don’t, God calls us to love thy neighbor as thy self, whereas, it is human greed and selfishness that wants the control. Don’t try and shove that solely on christains.

Every human ever created has sinned at least once. It is inevitable, we are flawed creatures. But to say that Christians only want control and power, that is an overstatement and honestly kind of hypocritical. You cannot look someone in the eyes and tell them honestly you have never, not once in your life, taken control or wanted to take control of someone or their actions.

Here Logan is saying he’s smarter than “you,” which I take to mean pretty much everyone, but his reasoning betrays his hubris. This is a clear case of Dunning-Kruger Effect. His entire first paragraph is a No True Scotsman. Apparently he thinks the “love thy neighbor” sort of Christian outweighs the Christians that have killed non-Christians throughout the centuries. He thinks there are more “love thy neighbor” Christians than Christians in the United States who hate immigrants, homosexuals, atheists, and anyone who practices another religion. If they don’t “love thy neighbor,” then they’re not a real Christian. Unfortunately for smart Logan here, Christianity has been the religion of hate since the Dark Ages. I think Galileo put it best:

Christians suppressed and silenced their adversaries by murdering them. In the US, now that it’s against the law to do that, they try to do so by foisting their conservatism into politics. Christians are the primary reason why women haven’t secured full reproductive rights in this country. The fetus, to the Christian’s mind, has more rights; that is, right up till it’s born because after that, the Christian doesn’t give a damn about it. The Christian’s pro-life stance perpetuates poverty the world over, so when women die because they don’t have access to safe and legal abortion procedures, the blood is on the Christian’s hands. So it looks like Christians throughout history in countries like the US, Brazil, Chile, England, Northern Ireland, The Republic of Ireland, Argentina, and so on, weren’t really Christians because “love thy neighbor” didn’t extend to poor women who needed abortions.

I don’t believe in “sin.” It’s a nonsense Christian concept. Yet here’s another example of smart Logan’s egregious reasoning: tu quoque. He’s basically saying “yeah, it’s wrong to want to control other people, but you’ve probably done it and other people have done it too.” Two wrongs don’t make a right! Also and more importantly, it’s one thing to want to control someone when you know for a fact they’re making a terrible decision(s). When you care about someone, you want the best for them, so when you see someone’s decision(s) hurting them in the long-run, you want to step in. That’s not what Christians do! Think again of abortion. 

Christians basically tell poor women to stay pregnant and give birth. In doing so, they’ve perpetuated the cycle of poverty for centuries. Abortion is a quality-of-life issue. In most cases, the woman in question can’t afford to have children or she’s in a toxic relationship that isn’t conducive to her raising children. If Christians “loved thy neighbor,” they would be concerned about the role of domestic violence in the decision to have an abortion; they would be concerned  about physically, mentally, and sexually abusive partners who not only abuse the women, but sometimes the children in the household! Yet Christians have overlooked pedophilia in their ranks for years! Catholics defend their priests and nuns and Protestants wave their hands in satisfaction because to their minds there are no such scandals in Protestant churches. Yet they ignore Pastors who abuse underage girls. They ignore the thousands of stories of sexually perverted congregants who sexually abuse their own family members even....

So at what point do you realize that, from the Christian point of view (!), someone’s capacity to sin doesn’t disqualify them from being a Christian? In fact, smart Logan is far off from the Christian message, which I think is best captured in Jesus drawing the line in the sand. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! Just because someone molests underage congregants or tortures or murders or lies or steals doesn’t disqualify them from being a real Christian! The issue is in Christianity. The issue is that Christians are shameful people. Christians confuse guilt for shame, so that’s why they “repent of their sins,” but there’s no corresponding change in their immoral behavior. A lot of them think it’s enough to ask for forgiveness and not change their behavior. It’s a cycle of shame. Never mind the role of sexual repression, especially in Catholic and Jewish circles. I can go on, but smart Logan here has no grasp of the tenets of his own religion and even less of a grip of logical reasoning and the history of his religion. In a nutshell, if it’s too much for smart Logan to read, this is what I intend to say:

Owen: Have you ever heard of the Gnostics? Annie: Is that when you're not sure if God exists, like not quite an atheist? Owen: No. Jesus' disciples, they all wrote gospels, right? But they didn't all make it into the Bible. The church only wanted the ones that told the story they were trying to tell.

Annie: I didn't know that. Owen: Well, the same goes for all history. Same goes for your brain. Annie: What do you mean? Owen: Our brains are just computers that make our life stories make sense.

Gnosticism" was a pejorative, and polemical, term to describe various, numerous sects which emerged out of early Christendom but parted ways with the Advent of cannonical Christianity via The Roman Catholic Church. They held onto teachings and texts which were and are deemed apochrophyl and heretical as such. The negative connotations around the "Gnostics" have stubbornly persisted, and were formed prior to the resurfacing of The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi libarary - which contain an accurate and historical account of what exactly those groups believed and were up to.