words

apparently I started the following post on october 27, 2019 and just never got back to it. I guess I didn't have a good way to wrap it up, so i never finished it. I still don't, really. but imma post it anyway since, well, why not.

many no longer casually toss around the words "gay" and "retarded" as general insults.

i was listening to the radio about awhile ago and they had listeners call in to say "I'm so lame because I..." after a few callers, someone called to comment that they shouldn't use the word "lame" anymore because it could be construed as insulting people with physical disabilities. i mean, i guess. tho i wonder how many people know what lame means in that context. but okay, today's definition of lame doesn't have much to do with the original meaning. it does, but I can see how that would be used as a slight to someone with a disability.

in the same week, I heard a short segment on NPR where the reporter talked about the growing movement in avoiding the word "crazy." I wonder if I agree with this one tho. I do not use that word to describe people with mental illness. I use it to describe frantic situations or people who are illogical sure, I could say "he's illogical!" or "today was super busy!" but I don't know, for some reason I don't think that's quite the same thing?

personally, i don't think it's such a big deal to learn more diverse and more precise vocabulary. especially if my word choice offends people.

censorship

The Real Reason We Need to Stop Trying to Protect Everyone’s Feelings

I have always thought that we should not (and DO not) have complete freedom of speech. there should be truth in advertising and in newsprint and much much more. people should not be allowed to write terrible hateful things in public. people should not be allowed to use public forums to say incendiary or untrue things.

it's true that "your feelings are your problem, not mine — and vice versa." (to a point anyway.) we don't need to listen to every opinion and make room for every hurt feeling. there isn't the time, energy, or need for such. but people should be held accountable for their actions and words.

fyi, this quotation? wow:
“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches.”

the interview 2

rip, ting and i watched the interview on the 25th via youtube. it was surprisingly similar to the version i watched months ago! i only caught three changes: the franco/rogen party scene seemed much shorter, i think they added in a lot of the butthole stuff (esp at the end of the actual interview), and they definitely way changed the face on fire part.

all in all, reasonable changes. i was hoping they'd use the nicky minaj interview about superb ass / super bass (that was in the commercials) and cut off the rob lowe interview (that i saw the first time), but they kept lowe in. bah. i didn't think it was funny then, and it certainly didn't get any better.

overall, i stand by my original review in that the movie is hilarious. knowing what jokes were coming didn't change my reaction to any of them. i laughed probably almost as hard as i did the first time.

i'm glad sony decided to release the movie. i think they messed up quite a bit in their handling of this whole thing, but in the end, they did the right thing. i mean, i get that sony is a private company, and one not held in the united states, but i think it's fucking crazy that we would let some other govt tell us what we can and cannot makes movies about. our own government doesn't even censor us this way, so why would be give some other govt the power to?! especially when this movie is billed as an obvious work of fiction and comedy! i do think that the creators of the movie could have made some concessions to not offend real people. they could've called it north something, and not north korea. and it didn't have to be kim jong-un. they could've picked any name. most people would still know who you're talking about. but anyway.

one last thing: altho a lot of people illegally dled the movie, rip bought it, which i commend him for. he wanted to support sony's decision to release the movie. and there's no better way to say you approve than to monetarily back up your approval..

the interview

i signed a nda, but imma write this anyway since no one reads this website and since i only have positive things to say "the interview". i watched it a few months ago as a screener. (i get emails that invite me to these free movies. they're unfinished so sometimes the effects aren't done yet, or they ask for feedback about certain things. anyway. this movie) i didn't really know what to expect. it was billed as a comedy starring seth green and james franco. about 10 minutes into the movie i still wasn't that into it. it was kind of funny, but not that great. as the movie went on tho, it got better and better and as i was walking out of the theater later i was thinking that this was probably the best screener i'd ever seen. it was hilarious! i disliked a couple specific things about the movie, but overall, the acting, pacing, comedy, story, ending, action, everything was awesome.

so this sony hacking thing. honestly, i do think it's north korea. if only because their only demand is that sony not release the movie. i would never have thought a govt so petty as to hack a company because they don't like their product, but when the hackers asked for nothing except for stuff pertaining to this movie, well, who else would it be?

i'm interested to see what happens. i'm writing this post on the 16th but am waiting until after the planned release, just in case that nda (or the hackers) come back to bite me in the butt. but seriously, it was a hilarious movie. we'll see how much they change it. some parts, i know, have already been changed cause i watched the end helicopter explosion scene and that is MUCH "cleaner" now. the way it was before was surprisingly "detailed", even before any of this craziness happened!

i'm glad sony changed the release date, from some north korean holiday to christmas day. it did seem unnecessarily antagonistic. them changing a few scenes here and there is also okay. i just hope they didn't ruin the movie.

one more thing. while, yes, the movie does make fun of the north korean leader, i felt like it mostly made fun of americans. kim was portrayed as a lonely, misunderstood, hypocritical person. but any actual vip (esp leader of a something as big as a country) would be lonely and misunderstood! the movie makes you feel bad for him. i mean, yes, north koreans are brainwashed to believe some incredibly fantastical stuff about their leader, but every hero's background is exaggerated at least a  little. but the americans in the movie were idiotic. i mean, even the cia looks ridiculous sending that can't-do-anything-right pair to do such important dirty work!

(follow up post romrow)

occupy

sourc

disclaimer: i haven't been following the occupy movement very much. and i didn't do any research for this post so if there are actual wrong facts in here, sorry. (tho i don't apologize for my opinions!)

i asked a few people what they think of the occupy movement and they all said that they don't see the point because the protesters don't seem to have a very clear plan of action. as in, when does this end? what change do you need to see happen in order to stop protesting?

i don't think it's pointless at all. this isn't like a union strike where you're protesting for something. the occupy movement is against something. and everyone, including the protesters, know that this something cannot be easily be changed. but that's fine, because the movement is to bring attention to the issue: the unfairness of massive financial inequality.

this reminds me of the sit-ins and the rallies of the 60's for desegregation and 70's against the war. did the protesters think that by sitting in a diner suddenly there would be change? of course not. they were looking for media attention (and not in a stupid kardashian way), and they got it. which led to others around the country also starting protest movements. and eventually there was change.

with the occupy movement, there may not be drastic change, who knows? those in charge are generally in, if not the upper 1%, at least the top 5%. but this movement is about money and unemployment. and since a lot of those occupiers don't have jobs to go to anyway (largely thanks, in their mind, to the upper 1%), theoretically, they could sit there forever. part of the occupy movement is to shame the fat cats. remind them of the 99% many of them don't seem to give a shit about even though we power the world they hold temporarily hold power over.

ashamed

the other day my neighbor asked where i find the organizations that i do drives for. was it through my church?, he asked. so i replied that no, i find the organizations online. i don't go to church; i'm an atheist. he made a face and said that i "shouldn't say things like that." i didn't ask, but i figure "that" is that i'm an atheist.

WTH?

religious people are now offended that i'm an atheist and ask me to not say what my religious affiliation is even though it basically came up in the conversation? well FUCK you! i didn't ask for christmas or "under god" in our pledge of allegiance and i sure as hell don't appreciate it when homeless people i give money to tell me "god bless." that makes me want to snatch my money right back. it also makes me want to yell at every religion pushing person that "goddamn it, atheists do nice stuff too!" but that would make me a bigot, just like you!

keep your fucking religion to yourself, and i'll keep my heathen ways to myself. don't bloody preach at me and then tell me to not talk about how i don't believe in any of that shit you do. btw, i didn't even fucking talk about it! all i said was that i don't go to church since i'm an atheist. that's it. it's like you telling me telling me that you go to synagogue cause you're jewish. i don't ask you to keep that info to yourself because it's nothing to be ashamed of.

you ought to be ashamed of yourself! you shouldn't silence others just cause they disagree with you. let's all just be loud and proud together, okay?

protecting free speech

if you've been following the news at all, you must've heard about the supreme court's decision about westboro baptist church (google news links, summary article). and as terrible, shameful, despicable, hateful, disrespectful as i find these westboro baptist protesters to be, i think the supreme court made the right decision (though justice alito dissented).

also in the news last week was dior designer john galliano's anti-semitic rants in paris (google news links). galliano was fired from dior and is now facing possible jail time for his racist remarks.

not to trivialize galliano's disgusting behavior, but many people think it's a bit unfair that a drunk guy saying racist things should get jail time, when gay-bashers with hateful signs can show up to a funeral of a soldier (who may or may not be gay!!) and have our highest judicial power defend their right to do so.

but galliano was in france. and we're in the states. and i don't think ANY other country takes "freedom of speech" as seriously as we do. it's illegal in france to say anti-semitic things. and i heard in germany it's illegal to name your kids after hitler (unable to verify this tho). and it's illegal in lots of other countries, to say anything against the government (even if it's actually true!).

but every citizen of america has the right to free speech in america. the westboro protesters can say hateful things, and i have the right to protest at one of their funerals and say equally hateful things, if not worse! of course, i'm not a fucking douche bag so i wouldn't do that.

the thing i have a problem with, is that as much freedom of speech as we have, there are limitations. i can't say "fuck" on regular tv. that's kind of weird, actually. i'm also not allowed to say defamatory things about people (tho i think the westboro baptist protesters are defaming god when they say stuff like "god blew up the shuttle" and "god hates fags" but i think in order for it to count, he'd have to press charges...)

why couldn't the supreme court have set up limitations for the protesters? you can protest, but only from 500 yards away, or anywhere that's not on the funeral route.

it's so disrespectful! this war we're fighting, it's not over gay rights! (it's debatable what we're actually for but for damn sure it's not gay rights). this soldier didn't die for gay rights. in fact, many of these soldiers may actually be against gay rights (most americans are anyway, and soldiers tend to be more conservative, upping their chance of being anti gay rights). if god really hated america because we like gays, why didn't he cause 9-11 to happen in san fransisco or hollywood? i mean, new york? they're liberal, but i wouldn't have picked them as the poster city for gay rights. america even!! why not the netherlands: "the first country in the world to grant full marriage and registered partnership rights for same-sex couples" [source], or even spain, cananda or south africa! yes, certain u.s. states have given rights to same-sex couples, but many haven't. and our federal government doesn't have laws protecting one thing or another.

gah. anyway. i agree with chief justice roberts who said that the 1st amendment protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate." tho i really wish that the westboro baptist protesters could see that whatever your opinion on gay rights or free speech, you should be respectful of the dead. especially those who died to protect you and this country with its very liberal freedom of speech laws.


and to finish this up on a funny note: the 30 best anti-westboro baptist church protest signs

judgement

honestly, no matter how you feel about same sex marriage, you should at least respect carrie prejean (former 2009 miss california) for having the courage to say what she believes in even though it's probably not in her best beauty pagent interest to do so. i think a lot of people in her position and with her position, knowing that the judge who posed the question is gay, would've dodged the question. they would've blurred their answers so you wouldn't really know what their stance is. carrie, inarticulate as she is, very clearly states that she is not in favor of same sex marriage. well good for her. it may have cost her the crown but at least she wasn't bullied out of saying what she believes in. everyone is entitled to their own opinion and they should have the right to express it verbally.

(video of her response)