#punished. not because they were doing something inherently wrong in the greater picture

[tinogiehd]

Whats the essayyy on

social deviance ^_^

[theres-whump-in-that-nebula]

It's been a while since you've posted about Crime and Punishment but do you think Raskolnikov had a point about his theory? Ofc it's not like you can just kill people if you're special, because everyone thinks they're better than everyone else, but it is true that the law isn't always the best way of doing things. What do you think?

Feel free to ignore this ask if you want. I'm re-reading it so thinking about it again.

Hm…

Obviously the law of the land doesn’t always work, and some parts of it are absolute dogshit. And yes, some intelligent people advanced society by killing others.

However! The murder of another should not be done just because one thinks he “has the right” I listen to a lot of true criiiiimmeeeee I listen to it at niiightttt

I like the girl talk viiibes okay I swear I’m done

Raskolnikov — if I remember correctly — largely portrayed intelligence as an inherently positive trait; as indicated by his “genius” or “Napoleon” categorization of intelligent, innovative people. He is the most incorrect person alive for assuming that. Being highly intelligent only means that you have more power than the average person; and the more power one has, greater is the chance that they will misuse it. Necessity is said to be the mother of invention; you are mentally incapable of intentionally inventing a weapon of mass destruction if you’ve never thought you needed a more efficient way to kill people. The only way one would want to work on a more efficient way of killing people is if they identified killing people slowly as a “problem.” This identification of the “problem” and the justification for “solving” it both arise from some high level of critical thinking.

There are two ways of arriving at a wrong solution: one is because you didn’t think critically; the other is because you’ve weaved such a web of mental gymnastics that you’ve begun to see your intricate work as beautiful, and are unwilling to part from it because you’re proud of it, and it makes you feel enlightened. This is precisely what happened to Raskolnikov.

He was very intelligent; but his intelligence caused him to do some stupid things. And he was not ruthless enough to deal with the consequences of his stupid actions, which is why he called himself a “louse.” True stupidity is not a lack of intelligence; true stupidity is the misuse of high intelligence. Raskolnikov was not a louse because he was so hesitant to carry out his murder plot that he fumbled it; Raskolnikov was a louse for doing something that ruined all the credibility he may have had to use his intelligence in a more beneficial way.

The most powerful people with the broadest reach are either extremely intelligent, are aided by those who are extremely intelligent, or were born or bought into a palatial empire created by someone who was extremely intelligent, which is now maintained by their descendants or heirs.

Basically what I’m trying to say is that before attacking a very harmful, powerful figure in any capacity; it is crucial to determine if the prospective victim has any real control over the situation they’re contributing to. If they do, their death will likely have a more positive impact on society than if you kill a figurehead, mouthpiece, or nepotism baby who doesn’t make any real decisions that affect society, and leaves the real brainstorming to someone behind the scenes.

Picture this: A giant octopus is attacking you, and you only have a single harpoon to use against it. It would be very easy to stab that harpoon into one of its tentacles; but if you do that, the octopus can still attack you with its other tentacles because it, and the central body, are intact. Your harpoon is spent and you are eaten because you lost everything you had to defend yourself. In order to incapacitate the entire beast, you should aim for one of its eyes. This way, it will be in too much pain and disorder to continue its attack, and may swim away.

That being said, if you are going to murder someone for the greater good, let the target of your plot be someone with a wide reach and a lord of followers, whose death will scare people into doing the right thing; or at the very least, scare them into being unwilling to continue doing the wrong thing.

The pawnbroker was not that kind of target. Was she an asshole contributing to a lot of suffering and poverty in her area? Yes. But she was not the root cause of the poverty. Even if Raskolnikov had actually distributed her wealth to those who needed it instead of hiding it in a shed, the system of oppression causing such disparity between the rich and the poor would have still been in place, and Rodya still would have been caught and regarded as a deranged killer of pregnant women and little old ladies.

Ideally, Raskolnikov should have murdered a lawmaker who was oppressing the poor through their legislation, and made his motive for doing it clear. But of course, that wouldn’t have been realistic for him to do in his living situation; he was poor himself and had no connections to influential people.

If Raskolnikov were to truly have made a positive impact in the long-term; he simply should have burgled her house in the middle of the night, without killing her or her sister, and donated the money to an orphanage or other charitable group. Even if he were caught and punished for his crime, he would have looked less like a demon-possessed man, and more like a Robin Hood figure. No one wants to imitate an axe murderer unless they’re completely evil and/or out of their fucking mind… but many, many people young and old have fantasized about being Robin Hood and living a life of virtuous crime and danger. This may have garnered respect from others who had similar views, with a higher societal standing than he; because who could get mad at a young, attractive college student for wanting to help the children? 🥺

(Not that being young or attractive makes you more worthy of praise… I’m just saying he should have used his tall, dark, and handsome looks to his advantage because unfortunately much of society is comprised of jerks who only have sympathy for the conventionally-beautiful).

Simply stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, without any murder, would have created an underdog for the news to write about and people to root for— it would have give them a rallying cry, and inspired others to do their own activism.

In short, I think Raskolnikov is partially right— killing a corrupt person in power can be (under certain conditions) a great way to benefit society! But it is more advantageous and beneficial in the long run for everymen to engage in acts of protest, network, and collaborate with each other to achieve greatness and lasting societal impact; rather than simply viewing oneself as a god among men who has a license to step on anyone who gets in their way. Aside from being a painfully-obvious, slow train wreck of an example of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, it’s just an awful, entitled, lonely, way to live— and fascist-adjacent at that!

One point of his I disagree with is that certain people are predisposed to be “extraordinary” or “lice��� because they either have the guts to carry through their plans or they don’t. Most people are hardwired to be “lice” because of the psychological phenomenon known as The Bystander Effect— “If we’re in a group and something’s wrong; then someone else will handle it.” If everyone thinks someone else is going to handle it; no one will. That’s just basic human psychology which can be broken with teaching people to assume no one will help unless they do something.

So to answer your question after taking about fifty-seven detours completely unrelated to the topic like a fucking maniac: YES Raskolnikov had a point about the right thing not always being legal; but he limited himself in primarily thinking of murder as the illegal act in question.

[eganantiquus]

Capitalism: Its Effects on Heaven, Hell, and a Few Others // A Good Omens Meta

I think the discussion about capitalism in Good Omens is a very interesting one to have- specifically in how it relates to Heaven and Hell. I saw a post about it recently, about the Quartermaster saying Heaven would “take the sword out of [Aziraphale’s] celestial wages,” which begs the question: does Heaven have money? A system of checks and balances on the Angels’ miracles, perhaps? Heaven is, after all, the original monopoly. But how does that affect them? Or affect Hell, for that matter? (Keep in mind, I will primarily be discussing events and dialogue from the TV show, as that’s the canon I’m most familiar and comfortable with extrapolating on.) So let’s move out a bit to take stock of the bigger picture. First of all in this discussion, let’s remember that the entire structure of Heaven and Hell blatantly showcases the shittiest parts of capitalism. As a reminder, the cons of capitalism can include: a monopoly on trade, goods, or services; social/emotional necessities ignored in the pursuit of profit; lack of concern for the environment; driving need for exponentially increased profit, allowing no space for slip-ups or less-profitable cycles; Inherited wealth, and big gaps in economic equality, which creates social divisions, which cause people to resent their fellow citizens. Let’s first take a look at something we’re all familiar with. Heaven’s and Hell’s relationship with Crowley and Aziraphale. Both Heaven and Hell have an inherent monopoly on basically everything, which is something we see both Crowley and Aziraphale struggling with in different ways throughout history. They want to exist outside of the hierarchy, but there literally isn’t any outside. In terms of social/emotional needs… do I need to go into the trauma and anxiety that Heaven and Hell instill in Crowley and Aziraphale? A post for another time. And it’s apparent, however much they try to hide it, that both of them fear authority, and would do practically anything to get away from it. So, they wiggle out from under it in whatever ways they can. (See: the “arrangement,” Crowley’s “there’s more to evil than killing people, eh?” and Aziraphale’s “Well, if you put it that way, Heaven couldn’t actually object… ”) Lack of concern for the environment can be extrapolated to Heaven and Hell’s lack of care for humanity. (See also, uh, nuclear Armageddon.) Inherited wealth/prestige is definitely a thing: see the Archangels lording their power over the lower Principalities. There’s a bit more room for mobility in Hell, where doing more evil deeds = more prestige & (...dis)honor? Anyway, this is where Hell begins to deviate. Exponential need for profit in Heaven and Hell translates to their increasing intolerance of Aziraphale’s *ahem* lies. Hell is more lenient in this area too- perhaps because of their disorganization. So Heaven and Hell are capitalistic. But in what capacity, and what is the effect on their respective denizens? In practice, who’s the winner in this capitalistic structure? Hell isn’t, no matter how inherently hellish capitalism might be. They’re clearly the losers in this situation- they’ve got terrible service, (see: Hastur having to “[wait] for maintenance to come and fix another bloody pipe,”* and the Demon Eric’s “we don’t get this view down in the basement.”) lack the organization to rise up against Heaven, (see: the frankly concerning lack of organized preparation for The Great War) and are constantly put down. They all have to fight for their positions, and are intimately familiar with what the failure to succeed in this “business” means. Not to mention that their entire hierarchy is performance driven, showing the capitalistic values they, for lack of a better term, grew up in, are still ingrained in all their practices. Heaven is at the top of an office building, has views of the entire world, is clean and obviously well organized. It’s clear what the hierarchy is there- everyone walks in lines, Gabriel always stands slightly in front of Michael and Uriel and Sandalphon, all of the higher Angels we see interact with Aziraphale treat him like he’s less than them. Heaven clearly benefits from the organization and driving force that capitalism provides, while Hell is just getting by.

To dive further into what the effects of capitalism are on Heaven and Hell, let’s go into depth more about Heaven and Hell’s respective war preparation to analyze their motivations.

Hell’s war preparations are disorganized, at best. All the Demons of Hell, gathered around two ‘generals,’ getting ready to hear a pep talk best described as being far from premeditated or sophisticated. On top of this, the second something goes wrong, Beelzebub says it. Just like that, to all the Demons. It makes me cringe every time I watch it, to see the rest of the Demons turn to each other and wonder if they’re following the right leader. The thing about this, though, is that they don’t have another option for a leader. This is the place for the people who couldn’t make it in Heaven, the outcasts and Fallen, so they don’t care. There’s nowhere else for anyone to go. Hell is far more transparent about their hate, their evil, but also about their vulnerability. Perhaps not individual vulnerability, (see: Crowley needing to be Cool and Collected at every moment) but in their overall anxieties and problems, Hell is very transparent. There is no need to hide the problems Hell has, because there’s no worse place to go. In this way, Hell has accepted their fate at the bottom of the totem pole.

Now let’s talk about Heaven’s war preparations. When Aziraphale arrives prematurely in Heaven, his “whole platoon” is “waiting” for him. So, Heaven has an organized war effort. They have uniforms. They have someone checking everyone in, putting them into place. (Where do they all line up to go to war? Where does the war Occur?? Questions for another time.) However, here is the interesting part: Heaven’s whole spiel to get everyone motivated, unlike Hell, is based on fear. While Hell brings up the actual motive for fighting, saying “we lost” and “we have had thousands of years to… get smarter,” Heaven tells Aziraphale that he’s a “coward” if he doesn’t fight, while not providing any reason besides ‘he’s supposed to.’

Here lies the beginning of the difference between Heaven and Hell: their motivators. Now let’s talk about how they carry out justice, and how that is an indicator of the effects of capitalism on them both.

Hell’s trial for Crowley is a mockery of the word, let’s be perfectly clear. They don’t provide him with a defense, and have an implicitly biased jury. However, it is a trial. A trial with evidence presented against him, a prosecutor, and a judge, and everything. What’s so interesting to me, about this, is that they don’t think for a minute that there wouldn’t be a trial. If they had thought such a thing was possible, they would have taken the opportunity. But they didn’t think of it. And that is what is so important here. Hell is the one that carries out a just trial. And I think that really speaks to their experiences as the Fallen. They know what no mercy looks like, what it is to be cut off from God’s love, with no hope for recompense. And, however evil they are, they know how much that hurts. Hell is just because they were given no justice. 

Heaven, on the other hand? There’s no preamble to Aziraphale’s “trial.” There isn’t even a trial. There’s just the characteristic fake-niceties boiled down to their basest component: a complete lack of empathy for anyone who deviates from the norm. (See Gabriel’s “into the flames,” and “don’t talk to me about the ‘greater good,’ sunshine.”). And, oh yeah by the way, what kind of good and just society uses capital punishment? Isn’t that the exact sort of thing Heaven should be above? I should sure hope so! Their believed moral code, the idea that because they’re Angels, divinely Chosen by God, that whatever they do is predestined to be right, has all the flavor of a strong dictatorship. So convinced are they of their superiority that even outright capital punishment is not below them. This is an interesting contrast to their motivation of fear that we looked at in the previous section. Perhaps higher Angels use fear to keep Angels in line, but feel exempt from the process itself. Very similar to the way big CEO's in the human business world accumulate wealth and power while their workers work paycheck to paycheck.

So Heaven is fundamentally bad, and Hell is fundamentally… good?

Not quite. 

Both Heaven and Hell are operating under the millennia of repressed trauma and baggage that came with the first war. For example, let’s look at their refusal to see nuance in the issue of war Take a look at Gabriel’s “We can fight! And we can win!” to Aziraphale and Beezlebub’s “Don’t you want to rule the world?” to Adam. They can’t comprehend that someone would want to, or, for that matter, could look at the structure of The Way Things Are and go, ‘No, this is not for me, I think I’ll just do this quietly over her instead.’ Heaven and Hell have each been indoctrinated in their own ways, by God and by Heaven and by their own inability to look past their instructions.

So, Heaven and Hell operate under the guidelines of a capitalistic system because of their respective experiences with authority and punishment.  

What does this say about Crowley and Aziraphale? That they’ve managed to dodge this system (mostly) altogether, and made one of their own… based purely on joy, mutual respect, and They still have their issues, (See: Being unable to communicate effectively. When? Oh, just for all of history) but for the most part, they’re living their own lives. It takes an especially strong will to stand up to a faulty administration, even if the standing up part consists of drinking a lot of wine, sliding around killing people, and consorting with an enemy who’s actually quite nice. It takes what a lot of Angels and Demons, simply put, don’t have. Like Hastur, who doesn’t have an “imagination.” Crowley invented one for himself. Crowley and Aziraphale practically invented free will for themselves, too. Part of their ability to so wholly reject their ‘upbringing,’ if you will, must be connected to the fact that they spend so much time around humans. If we go with TV show canon, they’re practically the only ethereal/occult entities that are on Earth for any long period of time. Of course they’re going to catch on from the humans. So Crowley and Aziraphale are the only celestial beings who have been able to get free of this terrible system, and so are able to better ‘guide’ the humans, which inevitably leads them to attempting to stop armageddon. (And of course, the apocalypse, according to Aziraphale, is something no “reasonable person would permit!”)

This brings us to the humans. Specifically, how Heaven is supposed to guide them. Heaven doesn’t, insofar as we are aware, care about the humans. Perhaps other Angels do, ones who have walked among them. But for the most part, especially with Gabriel, Michael, Sandalphon- the people in charge- the humans are an afterthought. They’re one knight on the chessboard, easily moved, taken, and discarded- perhaps with a bit of regret, but dispensable all the same. In this way, the exponential growth mindset that Heaven has goes to show just how far they’ve deviated from God’s design. Now, far be it from me to speculate on the nature of the Ineffable Plan, but as far as I’m aware, the Angels were created to love humanity, and to nurture them. Doesn’t sound like what they’re doing at all, does it?

So in this way, we can see that both Heaven and Hell have gotten the short end of the metaphorical capitalism stick. Hell, at the bottom of the ranks, desperate to climb back up and regain their glory, but unable to do so because of the weight of their Falling trauma; Heaven, in all its Jeff Bezos glory, unable to see the consequences of their actions close up because of their disassociation with “reality.” 

Capitalism and economics in general are incredibly nuanced things, and I do not at all pretend to fully understand them. However, I fully enjoy imagining how the complex dynamics of Good Omens universe Heaven and Hell deal with the repercussions of existence and their own actions through the lens of capitalism.

*side note from paragraph seven: I think maintenance work would be a more fitting job for Crowley and Aziraphale, and frankly, I would love to read a fic about that.

[aijee]

hello! i’m the anon who left the 6-part ask regarding mg a few months ago (i refer to those asks bc i’m back to drop more thoughts about mg and might touch on what i previously said). i wrote this whole thing disregading word count, believing i could drop it all in one go because i managed to log in to my tumblr, but it seems i still have to break it up… lmao i don’t know how many parts this will be or if i could post it all tonight, but i will signify the very end with “6-part anon” :)

Cont’d with response under the cut (I made some executive decisions about where the paragraphs break lol so it’s not all one block of text):

they want to be famous; that part just came along with the package. then i read in your bts post, you see mg as more wrapped up in entertainment, having star power with a bright personality, liking the limelight. reading that, i do agree, but i guess ive never thought of that before. i think wanting to be a star and wanting to be in the spotlight can seem self-centered. i hope im not coming across like im judging everyone who wants to be famous as “bad” because that’s not what i’m trying to do, but i think it’s safe enough to say that wanting to be famous means wanting people’s attention on you. i’m trying to tread carefully but i suppose i am saying that on the surface, wanting to be a big star can seem a little selfish in the sense that you want to boost your image, present your best self at all times, want people’s eyes on you and want them to think good things about you. combining those general thoughts about wanting to be a star, with my thoughts about mg in particular, is interesting to me.

i’ve always seen him as someone so selfless, so lovely, so considerate towards others. throughout idotsc, you’ve written him throughout as someone so amiable, liked by everyone, and also selfless and considerate. and in chp 7, his reaction twds the pictures is... well, I think they’re pretty true to character, and again i think it shows selflessness. then the ‘Love Languages’ text that OP had written— while, of course, OP doesn’t know him and everything is an assumption to a certain degree, I think their writing summarizes in one place what I observed about mg through the content available to the public: he constantly gives to people around him, exhibiting sincerity, words of gratitude and acts of service. at the same time, i definitely agree with what you said about his star quality, so i think that was the first time i really stopped to examine my thoughts about stardom and how some things may not be mutually exclusive.

“stardom” also makes me think about his recent incident, because of course, such incidents are definitely a potential consequence of fame. during that time i’ve also come across several opinions saying that they’re not surprised if a current idol was a past bully… i don’t remember exactly what people said but i think it was somewhere along the lines of, if they were so confident and cocky since predebut, then they might have had the qualities of a bully. something like that. i think from the outside looking in, it may be easier to equate star quality with a diva attitude/disregard twds others.

one thing i’d like to add is sth that a famous person said abt fame, and why they value it more than money, bc if they meet a fan, the look on the fan’s face upon meeting them gives them a feeling money can’t buy. and i suppose from this angle, being a star seems selfless. with svt too, they expressed how meaningful it is to them that theyre able to bring us so much joy. i think from the outside looking in, it may be easier to equate star quality with a diva attitude/disregard twds others. one thing i’d like to add is sth that a famous person said abt fame, and why they value it more than money, bc if they meet a fan, the look on the fan’s face upon meeting them gives them a feeling money can’t buy. and i suppose from this angle, being a star seems selfless. with svt too, they expressed how meaningful it is to them that theyre able to bring us so much joy.

i hope this all makes sense; i had lots of thoughts and wanted to try to write them. i struggled to understand why one would want to be a star, and went in circles questioning if i thought it was more selfish or selfless, and what one’s true motives might be behind wanting fame. ik u implied u embrace long writing bc you also write in length, but i’m less eloquent than you are so i hope this was fine! thank you again for having a space where people could offload their thoughts :) ~6-part anon~

There’s a lot to unpack here, isn’t there! A buffet of food for thought, for sure. I can’t possibly respond to everything written here because there’s just so many points, so I’ll write a few points. As always, take what I write with a grain of salt.

I don’t think there’s anything bad or inherently wrong with pointing out that, hey, people who are interested in a profession necessarily tied to a public image probably to show off or want attention. These things are perfectly natural to want, even for people who aren’t celebrities, because we’re (1) inherently social creatures and a lot of our survival is contingent on external success, and (2) we are brought up to feel validation from others, especially in an age where our lives are much more on display. But I can see why “selfishness” may be thrown in the mix because we often look down on attention-seekers and “popular” people, many of whom exhibit arrogant/tone-deaf behaviors. On the other hand, it’s understandable that an idol with a big public image necessitates putting their best foot forward all the time to maintain good opinion of them and to earn more money, frankly.

I’ve probably repeated myself too many times, but something I’ve been grappling with recently is this black-and-white mindset/judgment system we often have of others (very much exacerbated by social media, e.g. witch hunts). Bad is bad, good is good. I’ve thought this way for a long time of myself in an upbringing that always punished/looked down on bad behavior (or what was considered behavioral flaws, like speaking out against elders, swearing as a femme person, etc.) rather than acknowledging that “bad” behavior can be exhibited by people who also do and act “good.” In short, while I can only speak from my perspective, I think we’re programmed to subconsciously seek behavioral perfection for a number of reasons: we were raised that way by family; and/or society; we feel judged by the presence of social media and greater access into our lives; accessibility to celebrities and “perfect” public figures makes us judge ourselves by comparison; education systems that poorly address internal learning as well as external learning, etc.

In Mingyu’s case, there’s nothing wrong with seeing and continuing to see him as all those good qualities in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong with grappling with potential past problematic behaviors of your faves, as long as you’re critical and open-minded about the parties involved (which is rarely ever a fanbase at large, but the skewed authority of a fanbase is a different can of worms). Idols are human, which means dealing with the good and bad that comes with interacting humans. Contrary to popular belief (and I write this sarcastically), people CAN change. People should be ALLOWED to change. Characters are static. People are not. And it’s sad to say that this is still an issue in the K-Pop world. 

As hard as it sounds, a person who bullied others in the past could still have good or pure intentions for becoming an idol. They could still feel fulfillment from making others happy; is that a bad thing? I personally don’t think so. Or maybe a person’s intentions for becoming an idol could be mixed good or bad, who the fuck knows? Not us. Honestly, I firmly believe that we fans don’t have the right to make definitive moral judgments of idols in the first place because we don’t know them personally. That, and people are extremely complex and hard to categorize, as much as we want to because it’s easier to do so. People are messy. Real life teaches us that more than the Internet does imo.

In any case, I don’t think selfishness and selflessness are mutually exclusive in the same way a person can be both good and bad. I learned that language, too, is a powerful vehicle that influences how we think. In that vein, with how compartmentalized definitions are in specific words, perhaps we think that their existence/practice is separate, i.e. being “selfish” is never being “selfless” because each word’s definition exists solely in their respective word and not the other (hopefully that makes some sense).

TL;DR: I think wanting attention and validation from others is okay and not inherently a bad thing, and people are fucking messy and rarely good without the bad (and vice versa).

Pretty sure I rambled a ton as well and probably didn’t hit that many points that you offered, anon. You ended up putting me on a thought train as well!

[happymetalgirl]

Bad Wolves - N.A.T.I.O.N.

Since breaking through into mainstream metal/rock’s zeitgeist with their cover of The Cranberries’ “Zombie”, Bad Wolves have taken the opportunity to follow as closely in the footsteps of Five Finger Death Punch as possible in an effort to hoist themselves up alongside that band as one of this era’s most recognized named and most streamed acts, despite the baggage that comes with it. And on their debut album last year, they came through with a bunch of passable, but entirely forgettable alternative rock and alternative metal songs clearly intended to land on as many Sirius XM stations and Spotify playlists as possible. For its few bursts of momentary intrigue and even all-in heaviness, the album always buckled to its greater priority of lowest common denominator accessibility and ultimately came out predictable and utterly boring as a result.

Low as my expectations were for the band’s sophomore effort this year and as much as it takes pretty much exactly the same approach at the same goal, N.A.T.I.O.N. is a slight improvement upon its predecessor, but that’s not saying much. Again, the band are aiming for wide appeal rather than deep resonance, so N.A.T.I.O.N. once again finds them running the gamut of radio-ready styles of alternative rock and metal and metalcore, from sappy ballads to a few genuinely intense bangers, and stale middle-ground filler in between. While such diversity in style is something that plenty of bands have succeeded in spades with, Bad Wolves are not showing themselves to be capable of accomplishing that kind of album, at least not with this goal of fast-tracking themselves to a co-headline tour with Ivan Moody and company in mind. For one, the songs on this album are so incredibly unimaginative the lighter they get, with the ballads sounding almost aware of their own shallow sentimentality and the more modest rock tunes sounding like blatant phone-ins that even Nickelback would be kind of embarrassed of. It sounds very grumpy-heavier-than-thou metalhead of me, but the band really show their highest creativity when the guitars and drums are free to break out of the decades-old formulas constructing the majority of the songs on here and go for some lively djent/hardcore-influenced punch. And that’s the other thing, the formulas the band are plugging into aren’t even new or fresh in any way; the band are essentially writing Shinedown and Nickelback songs that didn’t get the chance to be released as bonus tracks in 2007 or 2008. While there’s not anything inherently wrong about revisiting an older style, Bad Wolves are doing little more than repeating the tired motions that ran their course during that period. Secondly, the band’s trying to make the album varied and “dynamic” with ballads woven into starkly and confusingly contrasting rockers gives the album as a whole an incredibly awkward flow from start to finish, like it didn’t even matter to the band what order the songs went in because they were all just written as fodder for some curated streaming playlists anyway.

The album kicks off on a muscular note with with djenty blast beats of “I’ll Be There”, with some rumbly bass and some slick metalcore riffage, the choruses being filled with some transparent Killswitch Engage melody imitation. That being said, it’s a pretty decent straightforward melodic metalcore banger with some much-needed drum-syncopated 8-string flair giving it most of its muscularity. “No Messiah” is little more than a continuation of the band’s pre-established formula and the start of the Nickelback impersonation with its Kroeger-esque taste for melody. It’s pretty predictable and representative of an era of rock whose peak has been about a decade past, and the song doesn’t make much of a case for its return, as most of its appeal comes from the gritty guitar tone and well-timed drum accents carrying the song that are more representative of modern metalcore than the overmilked Shinedown-alt-rock dragging the song down. The under-three-minute “Learn to Walk Again”, despite its butt-metal verses, is a more concise and much more tasteful example during its soaring choruses of this modernization of last decade’s melodic alternative metal. It sounds like something Benjamin Burley might have written back in 2010.

The uncannily Nickelback-esque alt butt rock of “Killing Me Slowly”, though, immediately kills any momentum the album was beginning to build up to, Jesus Christ it’s such a basic, unoriginal song, and it doesn’t get much better when the band slow things down on the subsequent surfacy saccharine alt metal balladry of “Better off This Way”. And this is where the album’s flow is its most noticeably disjointed. The djenty hardcore elements return on the rap-flowed “Foe or Friend”, and it’s a truly punchy, punishing metallic hardcore cut that shows that the band is clearly in tune with that genre’s current evolution/revival through acts like Code Orange, Vein, Knocked Loose, Jesus Piece, etc. It’s songs like these that show that this band is capable of making a consistently creative and aggressive album that plays to their instrumental strengths rather than trying to do their best impression of Five Finger Death Punch or their cohorts in the alt metal field from ten years ago. And hardcore songs like this make absolutely no sense sandwiched between corny, phone-in ballads like “Better This Way” and the acoustic/clapping cheese of the subsequent understating of the substance-abuse ballad, “Sober”.

And then of course we get “Back in the Days”, which sounds like a slightly better version of a Nickelback-type hard rock track, and at this point on the album the band is really just retreading their footsteps and walking in circles plugging into the formulas they’ve already plugged up into on the album, and the album’s flow continues to make no sense with the Killswitch Engage-esque old-school NWOAHM melodic metalcore on “The Consumerist”, which is a pretty standard and traditionalist representation of that genre’s older form, so one of the better tracks here. The subsequent “Heaven so Heartless” makes stylistic sense for once after the preceding track with a moodier take on the heavy alternative metal style of “The Consumerist”, similar to how Breaking Benjamin at their best gave heartfelt alternative metal extra catharsis via some welcome metalcore edge. The song “Crying Game” that follows, though, is another formulaic alt metal power ballad that offers as little novelty to discuss as the previous tracks in the same vein.

The album closes with the bookending melodic metalcore of “LA Song” as if to try to end on a heavier note to give the illusion that the album is more packed with true intensity than it really is. The cleanly sung choruses don’t really contribute anything of value to the song, and the song once again just shows that this band needs to set its strings-men and its drummer free to run wild if they want to make anything worth more than a yawn through.

I feel like my vocal appreciation and praise for what Motionless in White are doing to revive several older styles by aesthetically and stylistically shape-shifting to put a more updated spin on those older sounds with their stamp on it should be enough to prove that I’m not just some pouty Scrooge that hates anything mainstream. Motionless in White are very much a prime example of how to approach making mainstream heavy music while maintaining creative integrity and not just letting a label pimp whatever your talents are to their financial ambitions, and I think they deserve every bit of success that Bad Wolves and their obvious adopted older brothers have had. I have said on here every time I criticize a cheap, creatively bankrupt, radio-pandering project that I enjoy myself plenty of accessible, mainstream rock and metal, and even some pop music if it feels genuine to me and I can vibe with it. I like what bands like Linkin Park, Breaking Benjamin, and even Shinedown did last decade with their very accessible sounds, and I still enjoy plenty of those bands’ songs and even full albums to this day. But those bands did wear their styles out or morph their sounds or their entire aesthetics into more wide-appealing forms that ultimately noticeably cheapened their art for the short-term gain of (or last-ditch push for) greater mainstream success. And those are the formulas Bad Wolves are tapping into on this album and their last, and it’s kind of a sad picture of the state of rock radio/playlists that that is what’s apparently the path to quick success on the charts.

N.A.T.I.O.N. is just like any wide-reaching, low-satiating, “something for everyone” modern rock/metal album that tries to shotgun a whole bunch of non-complimentary styles at the open ears of rock and metal radio, some cheesy ballads to play on the way to a date at a NASCAR race and some typical rockers with just enough adrenaline to get some of the crowd there moving (but not too much to alienate people who never listen to this kind of music outside sporting events), and a few genuine hardcore bangers to try to convince people actually interested in heavy music that Bad Wolves really do have some street cred and aren’t just another industry puppet meant to replicate Five Finger Death Punch’s lucrative business model.

A little something for everyone that leaves everyone still hungry/10

[blackchristiannewswire]

Pastor Dwight McKissic Speaks Out in Support of Paige Patterson Despite Harboring Conflicting Emotions Regarding Patterson’s Counsel on Spousal Abuse and the Resulting Implications for the SBC

[caption id="attachment_429409" align="aligncenter" width="512"] Cornerstone Church Pastor Dwight and First Lady Vera McKissic[/caption] by William Dwight McKissic, Sr. The most loved and loathed personality in SBC history is, without a doubt, Dr. Paige Patterson, current President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX. Dr. Patterson remains a figure held in the highest esteem by many SBC pastors, who find no fault with his controversial and now well-known remarks, spoken on the subject of spousal abuse in 2000 at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Patterson is loathed by many in the SBC, not only for the spousal abuse comments, but for many miscues, missteps, mistakes and positions taken, that many find unacceptable. [Wade Burleson’s link, Ed Stetzer, Jonathan Merritt, SBC Voices…you can read about some of those issues.] Southern Baptists of all stripes are beginning to weigh in on the Patterson controversy. Alabama Pastor, Rick Patrick, has come out strongly in support of Patterson. Oklahoma Pastor, Wade Burleson, is calling for Dr. Patterson’s resignation…voluntary or forced. Tom Rainer, President of Lifeway, the book-selling arm of the SBC, took a strong stand supporting women victims of spousal abuse, without criticizing Dr. Patterson. In SBC culture, for an entity head to weigh in on a public controversy involving a SBC entity head, with a statement widely interpreted as flowing counter current to supporting Patterson, is unprecedented. It was extremely bold within the SBC context, but correct of Thomas Rainer to make a statement. On his heels, Danny Akin, President of SEBTS, weighed in similar to Rainer; and Russell Moore affirmed Rainer’s comments publicly. Clearly, these statements are designed to clarify the SBC’s and their entities’ position regarding spousal abuse, as opposed to a retort or rebuke to Patterson; yet in SBC culture, anything short of, “I support Dr. Patterson,” is interpreted as, “I’m against Dr. Patterson,” particularly with regard to this issue. These outstanding entity heads should not be viewed in a negative light for supporting women victims of spousal abuse and protecting their entities and the SBC Brand. I applaud and appreciate these men. I consider myself an independent, free-thinking, theologically orthodox, Kingdom-focused and driven African American Southern Baptist. My viewpoints usually are not totally in alignment with SBC mainstream establishment; neither do my views usually align with SBC moderates or liberals. The late great National Baptist Preacher, Dr. C.A.W. Clark stated, “John the Baptist was too early to have been a New Testament Apostle and was too late to have been an Old Testament Prophet.” I was too young and too fundamental to have been a part of the moderate-liberal arm of the SBC. I was too independent and too knowledgeable of SBC racial history to be a full card-carrying member of the conservative resurgence. Therefore, like John the Baptist, I just became a voice, often a lone voice in the SBC wilderness, able to speak truth and love and receive truth and love on both sides of the SBC political/theological spectrum. That brings me back to the subject matter: “My conflicting emotions regarding Dr. Patterson’s spousal abuse counsel/crisis” and its implications. Remember, I told you that I am an independent voice, beholding to no one and not posturing for anything. I am free, a rare breed in the SBC; but I will have it no other way. Speaking “truth to power” is an inherent part of my National Baptist Faith tradition.

1. I do not support the notion that Paige Patterson is disqualified to preach the Annual Convention sermon at the SBC Annual Convention this June in Dallas. Everyone needs to pause and take a long breath, before we rush to the verdict that his remarks (as problematic and unpopular as they were/are) should disqualify Dr. Patterson from preaching the annual sermon.

Which one of us, who’ve been preaching any length of time, could be subject to someone pulling a tape/video from the archives of something we’ve said many years ago; but we would not say the same thing today, or certainly, not in the exact same way. Yet, if brought to public light today, it would create for us a similar PR crisis?

Again, that’s not to excuse, or agree with, what Dr. Patterson unwisely spoke (in my judgment); it’s to say, “The punishment is much greater than the crime.” Let the SWBTS Trustees rebuke Dr. Patterson for his remarks, if they must. Let the SBC in session adopt a strong statement making it crystal clear that we do not support spousal abuse of at any level of gradations—Period—if we must. But to punish and embarrass him on the Convention floor, a venerated figure like Dr. Patterson, by denying him a well-earned slot of being the Annual Convention preacher in the sunset of his life and ministry, is simply overkill. Separate the punishment from the sermon.

2. My feelings are conflicted because I certainly understand the opposing viewpoint and find merit obviously, in many of their arguments. My hunch is Paige Patterson would agree with the immediate previous sentence. Those who are calling for Patterson’s resignation and him stepping down from preaching are driven by pure motives, in my opinion. They believe that to speak a word of support and compassion for victims of spousal abuse is more important than being silent, and by silence give consent to one who has spoken in such a way that can be reasonably interpreted as inappropriately addressing the subject and speaking non-representative of SBC views in doing so. I get that!

Please consider for a moment though, what if the Hebrew writer excluded Moses from the Hall of Faith because he murdered an Egyptian? What if David was removed because of his adulterous affair? What if Rahab had been removed because of her harlotry history? What if Abraham had been removed because of his lying? You get the picture. We should not remove Patterson from the honor of preaching what could very well be his last SBC Convention sermon, because of a series of poor word choices, in an ill thought out attempt, to rightly communicate a biblical truth-opposing divorce. The SBC has not removed memorabilia of Boyce and Broadus, from their walls—slave-holders/Confederates. Yet, we are going to remove Paige Patterson from preaching the Annual Sermon, because of an isolated incident of unwise counsel.

3. I believe Dr. Patterson’s retirement schedule should in no wise, be impacted by the 2000 poorly worded sermon or a Q&A dialogue. Again, we need to be careful about the precedent we are setting here; others may fall victim as well.

There is a colloquialism often sang and expressed in the Black church that says, “If you set one trap, you may be setting two; because, the trap you set for others, may also be for you.”

4. Finally, it is no secret that Dr. Patterson and I have had our share of disagreements. Yes, I appreciate the fact that in 2002 or 2003, Dr. Patterson invited me to preach in Chapel at SEBTS, largely because he appreciated my uncompromising convictions, standing for the inerrancy of Scripture.

I appreciate the fact that Dr. Patterson offered me two or three opportunities to preach in Chapel, upon assuming the presidency of SWBTS in 2004.

I appreciate the fact that Dr. Patterson has responded favorably during those few times I’ve asked for his assistance in being a blessing to others.

Dr. Patterson hired a personal friend and my college roommate for a semester as an adjunct professor, in part, because of my request.

Dr. Patterson housed a student assigned to the Dallas area one summer, who was enrolled full-time in a Black seminary in Virginia, in part, because of my request.

Dr. Patterson, on a snowy day in February, three-four years ago, when school was closed because of the weather, Dr. Patterson entertained (in his house) the only Black professor in the world (I’m told) with a PhD from the University of Manchester whose study focused on The Dead Sea Scrolls. He later provided a guide to tour Dr. Hopkins through the exhibit on display at the time. I found their technical conversation about the Dead Sea Scrolls fascinating, although I understood very little of what was being said.

I even asked Dr. Patterson to host a group at SWBTS that he had major theological disagreements with. He reluctantly agreed to do it, but I received a good Baptist chewing-out for forcing his hand. The group later decided not to accept the offer. I was disappointed.

I now have a request in for the Seminary to house an MDiv student from Princeton Theological Seminary who wants to intern with me this summer.

Dr. Patterson awarded Eugene Florence at the age of 100 a Master of Divinity Degree. Although he had completed the coursework in 1951, because of segregation he was not awarded the degree. Patterson corrected a historic wrong by giving him the M.Div. degree, and he also named scholarships in Eugene Florence’s honor.

For all of those reasons and more, I genuinely value and appreciate Paige Patterson. I really hate to see him experience this kind of end of career pain.

Dr. Patterson and I had a major public disagreement about my last Chapel message in 2006, where he objected to my affirming the biblical validity of praying in tongues in private (I Corinthians 14:2) and challenging the IMB Trustees to rethink their position. In 2015, the IMB adopted a position identical to what my sermon called for, and that is freedom of worship in private, regarding prayers. Therefore, I will soon ask Dr. Patterson and the SWBTS Board, to remove the censorship from my sermon, based on their stated reasons for removing—“criticizing an SBC entity”; and now, that entity is agreeing with me. However, if Dr. Patterson doesn’t remove the censorship, after I present my case and protest to the fullest extent, so be it. I want to hear him preach this Annual sermon and follow whatever timetable he and the Trustees have set for his retirement, regardless to what’s ultimately decided about removing the censure from my 2006 chapel sermon. I’ve always disagreed with Dr. Patterson’s position on a female teaching the Hebrew alphabet at SWBTS. I find that position totally unbiblical, unnecessarily alienating; and the thinking behind it played into the unwise 2000 remarks that have gotten him on the hot seat now. Nevertheless, none of this is new. It is sort of baffling to me that the SBC would wait until now to punish a man for a “crime” committed in 2000. Everyone needs to put their guns back in the holster, or “slow your roll” as the old folk used to say, “Calm down!” “Chill out!” “Come now, let us reason together says the Lord!” Time out! Pause this “run Patterson out of town train” leaving him with a legacy of shame and pain. There is a way to resolve this without the leader of the conservative resurgence leaving town under a cloud of suspicion and rejection. The SBC can hold Dr. Patterson accountable for the inappropriate remarks; make crystal clear our position on spousal abuse, and at the same time, give honor to whom honor is due—Dr. Paige Patterson. I’m as conflicted as many are. But inasmuch as his sin was misjudgment of words as opposed to deeds; can we err on the side of grace and allow Dr. Patterson to leave the SBC platform with his dignity and legacy intact? Would you want your dignity and legacy stripped from you because of poor word choices, on a given day. Selah. Pause. Think about it. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” ought to be the guiding principle here. Selah. In conclusion, I was called to pastor a church at 21 years of age in 1977 in Pine Bluff, AR. One Sunday evening after worship service, I was approached by a young adult parishioner who asked for a counseling session with me. I said yes, and invited her into my office. She laid out the following scenario: She was in an abusive marriage with a financially irresponsible husband. She was working two full-time jobs and at times a third part-time job just to make ends meet. She already had six children at home who were forced to manage themselves most of the time since she had to work day and night. She was pregnant again and asked me if she should get an abortion. At that time, abortion was not a political or theological “hot button” issue in 1977 as it became a few short months and years thereafter. I personally had not formed a strong opinion or conclusion about abortion in 1977 and 1978. I had no reason to form one. Abortion was not discussed in homes, churches, or schools/colleges/seminaries in ’77-78. Therefore, I counseled her based on situational ethics. After listening to her situation, I was sure the last thing she needed was another baby. I advised her if an abortion was what she wanted, then go ahead; and she did. Several months later, an abortion battle emerged in Arkansas Legislature. I was reading about it and noticed my Pastor’s comments regarding how life begins at conception based on Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13-14. I thought to myself, “Oh, my God, I gave the young lady very unwise and unbiblical counsel.” I had never heard my Pastor or any one teach that lesson until I read his remarks in the newspaper. So I gave this young lady some horrible advice. If I had been asked that question in a panel setting, I would have given the same answer. That counseling session took place 40 years ago. I have confessed publicly and privately my unwise, unscriptural advice, and asked God for forgiveness. My horrible counsel is one among several reasons, Paul advised New Testament churches, not to call a novice as pastor. My point is: What if my speaking engagements (at least nine scheduled as of today) or the several awards that I have recently received (including a Distinguished Alumni award that I will be receiving at Ouachita Baptist University in September) were revoked because of wrong advice that I gave 40 years ago? This is why I am sympathetic toward Dr. Patterson and his plight. To retroactively punish Dr. Patterson for remarks he inarticulately and wrongly made years ago is unfair in my judgment and not a way to treat a modern day patriarchal figure in SBC modern history. Selah. Pause. Think about it!

William Dwight McKissic, Sr., is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, where he has served for 35 years. He is a graduate of Ouachita Baptist University, and has received honorary doctorates from Morris Booker Baptist College and Arkansas Baptist College. He has served as a guest lecturer at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Criswell College, the University of Minnesota, Emory University, Southern Illinois University, Wheaton College, and Harvard University. He has served on the Board of Trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX, and currently serves on the Board of Trustees at Arkansas Baptist College, Little Rock, AR, an HBCU. He and his wife Vera have four children and twelve grandchildren. You can purchase his new book, Controversial Conversations, today.