![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So at work, a tiny girl pointed at the Avengers standee, specifically at the portrait of Black Widow, and said "I know who that is! That's the girl with the dragon tattoo!" Oh, pop culture saturation, you so crazy. She also pointed at the Hulk and said "I own him!" Guys, as great as it is for girls to have female role models to look up to--how awesome is a six-year-old Hulk fangirl? I just wanna give her little Hulk hands!
This concludes the low heart pressure portion of the day's events.
After work, the dad and I went to see Lock-Out. My capsule review: Don't go see this movie. Wait for the unrated DVD.
It's one thing for a movie to be shot for PG-13, overstep the bounds a little with the MPAA, trim a few things, and get the rating they want. I mean, still bullshit that three seconds of a guy getting his headcrushed is inappropriate for children, but two seconds is fine, but, you know, cookies crumble. This is like a Friday the 13th movie for kids. It's clearly an R. They hacked it down. The opening action sequence is nearly incomprehensible (the closing gag makes no sense, because they obviously cut out the set-up for it). There are constant gory moments juuuuuuust off-camera. It's just ridiculous that we should pay good money for an edited-for-TV movie. Either give us the real fucking deal or shove in commercials and show this for free.
Even worse, there was a couple there with a baby. Like, a baby-baby (sorry, Justin Bieber googlers, wrong stop). And this was a loud, violent movie. The kid was crying. I'm pretty easy-going--in fact, I'm probably the most boring person who ever reviewed superhero porn on a feminist website--and I had to say "Screw up your kid somewhere else." Which the dude happened to overhear and oh, what fun a shouting match is in a crowded theater.
Now, I know I have a somewhat undeserved reputation for being a jerk online. Quick recap for my undeserved reputation.
Me: *sarcastic joke, often meant to point out the sexism of a situation*
People who write about My Chemical Romance bandmates fucking and are therefore predisposed to not know this irony of which I speak: YOU'RE BEING SINCERELY SEXIST! EN GARDE!
(Still a better origin story than Amazing Spider-Man is gonna be.)
Anyway, I actually hate conflict, so just that brief "Fuck you!" "Fuck you too!" had me working on an ulcer the rest of the movie. Was this all because the movie was rated PG-13 and thus someone of moderate mental retardation could think it was okay for babies--you know, like the Teletubbies? POSS-IB-LY.
The movie itself I'm going to love when it comes out on unrated DVD. Guy Pearce is always divine, and I know the joke is that Maggie Grace is reprising her role of Lady Distress-a-lot from Taken, but she actually gets a lot to do. She calls the hero on his bullshit and they banter and while she never turns into Lara Croft for no reason (looking at you, Knight And Day, among so many others), she can handle herself in a fight. But still, it's ridiculous that we have to put up with this Yippie-ki-yay Mr. Falco bullshit in theaters.
Then on the way home, a discussion on parenting critique between the pops and I turned into the Trayvon Martin case. No, I'm not being funny (you see how the MCR fans are out to get me?), my dad goes "Hey, that's how situations start to escalate, just like with Trayvon Martin." My dad isn't a bad guy, but, you know... old people. He even said that from his point of view, they're two young men, which I didn't point out put a false equivalency between a kid and a grown-ass man.
He's one of those "I don't want to prejudge things" types, which I feel ignores the fact that the case was prejudged and dismissed until people started prejudging the fuck the other way. And this I did bust out, the false center fallacy (albeit with maybe some stuttering; lay off, I was driving). Maybe not the right name, but you know, "Person A says we should shoot all the babies. Person B says we should shoot no babies. Person C says we should shoot some babies; he's between the two positions, so as the most moderate guy, he must be right." And that's what I feel all this "we don't know what really happened, he says she says, it could've been self-defense" business boils down to.
Because my dad is saying he's read things on both sides of the issue. Now, I don't know what website he did read--possibly a Fox News Point/Counterpoint debate, which I imagine going something like this: "YES TRAYVON MARTIN DESERVED TO DIE AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL." "On the other hand, maybe Zimmerman should've just kneecapped him."
Dad: *eyewitness who said Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman*
Me: *the kid was on the phone with someone, saying a guy was following him and that he was trying to get away*
Dad: I hadn't heard that.
Me: *you've read both sides of the issue and you don't know that* Did you know that Trayvon Martin was busted for marijuana possession?
Dad: Yes, I did.
I think both sides of the issue for him might've been from right-wing all the way to far-right. I dub that a LOGICALITY. Internet, high-five?
He also (I want to reiterate here that my father does believe the Holocaust happened, before this turns into a Mel Gibson's dad this explains everything situation. The hilarity comes first, the racial insensitivity comes second) said that hey, black people are responsible for a lot of crime, so, you know... VIGILANTE JUSTICE! I asked why that was, and if it might not have something to do with the fact that it's okay to shoot them. I mean that seems like a turtles all the way down sitch, right?
Step 1. An unarmed black teenager getting shot is ambiguous because black people commit many crimes.
Step 2. Black people commit many crimes.
Step 3. ????
Step 4. Perhaps this loops back on itself somewhat?
This concludes the low heart pressure portion of the day's events.
After work, the dad and I went to see Lock-Out. My capsule review: Don't go see this movie. Wait for the unrated DVD.
It's one thing for a movie to be shot for PG-13, overstep the bounds a little with the MPAA, trim a few things, and get the rating they want. I mean, still bullshit that three seconds of a guy getting his headcrushed is inappropriate for children, but two seconds is fine, but, you know, cookies crumble. This is like a Friday the 13th movie for kids. It's clearly an R. They hacked it down. The opening action sequence is nearly incomprehensible (the closing gag makes no sense, because they obviously cut out the set-up for it). There are constant gory moments juuuuuuust off-camera. It's just ridiculous that we should pay good money for an edited-for-TV movie. Either give us the real fucking deal or shove in commercials and show this for free.
Even worse, there was a couple there with a baby. Like, a baby-baby (sorry, Justin Bieber googlers, wrong stop). And this was a loud, violent movie. The kid was crying. I'm pretty easy-going--in fact, I'm probably the most boring person who ever reviewed superhero porn on a feminist website--and I had to say "Screw up your kid somewhere else." Which the dude happened to overhear and oh, what fun a shouting match is in a crowded theater.
Now, I know I have a somewhat undeserved reputation for being a jerk online. Quick recap for my undeserved reputation.
Me: *sarcastic joke, often meant to point out the sexism of a situation*
People who write about My Chemical Romance bandmates fucking and are therefore predisposed to not know this irony of which I speak: YOU'RE BEING SINCERELY SEXIST! EN GARDE!
(Still a better origin story than Amazing Spider-Man is gonna be.)
Anyway, I actually hate conflict, so just that brief "Fuck you!" "Fuck you too!" had me working on an ulcer the rest of the movie. Was this all because the movie was rated PG-13 and thus someone of moderate mental retardation could think it was okay for babies--you know, like the Teletubbies? POSS-IB-LY.
The movie itself I'm going to love when it comes out on unrated DVD. Guy Pearce is always divine, and I know the joke is that Maggie Grace is reprising her role of Lady Distress-a-lot from Taken, but she actually gets a lot to do. She calls the hero on his bullshit and they banter and while she never turns into Lara Croft for no reason (looking at you, Knight And Day, among so many others), she can handle herself in a fight. But still, it's ridiculous that we have to put up with this Yippie-ki-yay Mr. Falco bullshit in theaters.
Then on the way home, a discussion on parenting critique between the pops and I turned into the Trayvon Martin case. No, I'm not being funny (you see how the MCR fans are out to get me?), my dad goes "Hey, that's how situations start to escalate, just like with Trayvon Martin." My dad isn't a bad guy, but, you know... old people. He even said that from his point of view, they're two young men, which I didn't point out put a false equivalency between a kid and a grown-ass man.
He's one of those "I don't want to prejudge things" types, which I feel ignores the fact that the case was prejudged and dismissed until people started prejudging the fuck the other way. And this I did bust out, the false center fallacy (albeit with maybe some stuttering; lay off, I was driving). Maybe not the right name, but you know, "Person A says we should shoot all the babies. Person B says we should shoot no babies. Person C says we should shoot some babies; he's between the two positions, so as the most moderate guy, he must be right." And that's what I feel all this "we don't know what really happened, he says she says, it could've been self-defense" business boils down to.
Because my dad is saying he's read things on both sides of the issue. Now, I don't know what website he did read--possibly a Fox News Point/Counterpoint debate, which I imagine going something like this: "YES TRAYVON MARTIN DESERVED TO DIE AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL." "On the other hand, maybe Zimmerman should've just kneecapped him."
Dad: *eyewitness who said Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman*
Me: *the kid was on the phone with someone, saying a guy was following him and that he was trying to get away*
Dad: I hadn't heard that.
Me: *you've read both sides of the issue and you don't know that* Did you know that Trayvon Martin was busted for marijuana possession?
Dad: Yes, I did.
I think both sides of the issue for him might've been from right-wing all the way to far-right. I dub that a LOGICALITY. Internet, high-five?
He also (I want to reiterate here that my father does believe the Holocaust happened, before this turns into a Mel Gibson's dad this explains everything situation. The hilarity comes first, the racial insensitivity comes second) said that hey, black people are responsible for a lot of crime, so, you know... VIGILANTE JUSTICE! I asked why that was, and if it might not have something to do with the fact that it's okay to shoot them. I mean that seems like a turtles all the way down sitch, right?
Step 1. An unarmed black teenager getting shot is ambiguous because black people commit many crimes.
Step 2. Black people commit many crimes.
Step 3. ????
Step 4. Perhaps this loops back on itself somewhat?
