In defence of privilege...

I am a white, middle-class, English speaking, cisgendered, homosexual male from a fairly well-off British family. I have never experienced any abuse, neglectful or otherwise, I grew up in a loving family who raised me well and neither spoiled nor deprived me, and any troubles or difficulties I may have with mental or physical disorders [officially] remain either unrealised or undiagnosed.

And if it were not for one word in that previous paragraph I would never dream of writing a post like this. As it is, I am already unsure of the effect this post would have if it were to be read by certain individuals I know, but I suppose that is why I am posting it in a fairly unofficial manner.

As it is, I have decided to write in defence of privilege. A friend of mine recently posted this tumblr to Facebook, and I recommend it to anyone who might want to know my opinions on a wide variety of questions that privileged people often ask.

The thing is that privilege is a difficult concept for me, because it is something that everyone experiences, everyone is a victim of, and yet so few people seem to know it exists. There is the obvious classist privilege that many people will be familiar with, and the sexist privilege that some insist is a thing of the past (or has been reversed, and that men are now victims of female-enforced privilege), or the similarly denied racist privilege. Beyond these types of privilege are cisgendered privilege, heterosexist privilege, ableist privilege, and symptomatically related prejudices such as biphobia, transphobia, ableism. Of course, this is just scratching the surface, as there is literally any kind of privilege that you can conceive.

Now, I'm not saying that privileged arguments are defendable. "But how do you know you're gay/lesbian/bi/trans?", "But surely polyamory is just cheating?", "I don't believe in bisexuality - you either are or you aren't. Make up your mind." and, "What do you mean, you're neither male nor female? Surely you have to be one or the other?" are statements or questions borne of ignorance and little else. I'm not talking about when people ask innocent questions to learn or avoid offending (for example, asking someone's pronoun - especially if they identify as a non-binary gender); rather I'm talking about people who have never experienced discrimination of a particular kind, and therefore decide that it does not exist.

I'm not denying that these people exist. I have fielded questions such as, "Is homophobia even a thing anymore?", "Do we really need an LGBT Society in a university where equality has pretty much been achieved?" and the infamous prefix, "I'm not being homophobic, but...", and so it would be a lie to argue that there does not exist an offensive privilege system out there.

But Fuck Yeah, Privilege Denying Dude (FYPDD) just got be a bit riled up. Now, I know I'm on the privileged end of the spectrum for pretty much everything except discrimination against gay males, but the way this tumblr deals with privilege is basically saying, "Any cisgendered heterosexual male with no history of mental issues is essentially a bad person and can never understand or empathise with the struggles of a marginalised person."

Some may jump to its defence and say that it is simply using generalisations and isolated examples to make a point about a very real problem, and I would agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that there are many people I know, both within and without the real world, who cry 'privilege' at the drop of a hat.

It's the same principle that makes someone who responds to an argument about tuition fees with, "Are you a mother? Then you couldn't possibly understand." Yes, you bring an essential point of view to a conversation, but as soon as that starts to become your default response, the whole point of the communication is lost.

My main point of contention for this argument is this post, which has the line in the description;

This is the reason why I just don’t trust privileged allies of anything, especially if they wear their ally status on their sleeves. They usually make it all about them, how enlightened they are, and how wonderful they are “helping” marginalized people, then get upset when they’re not appreciated and insult the people they claim they’re allied to.

See, that post to me just highlights a fundamental problem with this approach to privilege. Yes, fighting constantly just to have your identity and beliefs acknowledged and accepted is tiring, and no one can be expected to do that all of the time. And yes, there are many people out there who are cruel and willing to capitalise on the struggles of marginalised individuals in order to make them look good.

But not trusting privileged allies of anything? I'm a male feminist - does the first part negate the second? I have friends who are trans and bi, and I will - and have - defend(ed) their identities when they have been questioned, to the best of my abilities. If I've ever argued a misunderstood or misinterpreted point, it has been an honest mistake, I apologise unreservedly for misrepresenting them and I will point out that in all probability there was alcohol involved at the time.

You don't trust privileged allies? Well, who the fuck are you to decide that the cause of the marginalised is one for only you to take? If ever there were a group that I would not expect to colour with the same brush, it's an anti-privilege group. I know a couple of trans people that I couldn't spend an hour talking to without wanting to kill someone, so does that make me a transphobe? How about the couple of bi guys that I think deserve a bit of a slap for being dickheads? Am I a biphobe now?

Go ahead and call me a privilege-denying dude arguing that any anti-cis, anti-het, anti-privilege is the same as marginalisation or some reverse discrimination. I realise that might be how it comes across. But what I'm trying to say - almost from a Devil's Advocate position (because I agree wholeheartedly with a lot of the sentiments expressed in that tumblr) - is that privilege is a difficult concept. It exists, no doubt, and it should be tackled head on, and yes of course, this is your life. When people start spouting hateful comments about it, you have every right to get angry. Hell, I'll get angry for you, whether you like it or not.

And I know it's a bit saccharine, but this whole rant made me think of this PostSecret (which I had to spend a while finding after traipsing through the 2,000 odd I have on my computer):

Text: Be kind - for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

As I said, saccharine, but I often find that keeping that message in mind makes it a hell of a lot easier to let, "But if you haven't kissed a girl, then how can you know?" slide off your back. :)

Gayness is mandatory!

So I was recently directed to an article on the Daily Mail's website (I know, I shouldn't have had high hopes when I went in) that came with the title Gayness mandatory in schools: Gay victims of prejudice to become new McCarthyites, by the lovely Melanie Phillips. For those of you who don't know who she is, allow me to paraphrase a section of her autobiography; she is a twelve-winged harpy from the eighth circle of Hell, whose hobbies include bigotry, table tennis, drowning kittens in oil and making Jan Moir look like a hippy.*

*Note: I may have used some creative licence here. This is not actually true. I think.

Anyway, she has written this... curiosity on the Daily Mail website and, I'll be honest, it took me a few paragraphs to realise that the formatting of the page was entirely wrong for it to be the Daily Mash. I looked through a few other pages and found out that, no, this is apparently a serious website. With articles about what it claims are news.

If you ask me, of course, I think it's just an arena for bigoted, close-minded ignorami to vent their worthless, ill-informed opinions. Oh, and to talk about how awful a personality Katie Price is. So maybe they're not all bad...

Anywho, this particular article is a serious piece of "journalism" (and I use the term loosely, as it seems to be mostly an accumulation of ill-informed opinions and not-very-well-thought-out vitriol about the 'homosexual agenda').

It starts off talking about the government's plans to include non-sexual LGBT references in the National Curriculum. Egads! Run for the hills! The gays are getting into the schools! The article seems to think that these plans involve getting rid of science and replacing it with gay science. So, instead of learning about exo- and endothermic reactions, children will instead learn about just how much lube you need to stop the condom breaking. After all, that's the natural progression, isn't it?

I mean, it couldn't be anything as innocuous as using LGBT examples in lieu of cisgendered heterosexual ones? Roleplaying in Spanish lessons as Pablo asking Juan out for drinks rather than Maria? Looking at geographical distributions of LGBT communities? Studying interesting and valid phenomena such as animals that form homosexual relationships? Surely the homosexual agenda wouldn't just want schools to stop treating LGBT issues as taboo subjects? They must be hoping to shove their sexualities upon our children! Otherwise what's the point in hating them?!

The article then, of course, moves onto the recent cases of Peter and Hazelmary Bull (the couple who turned gay weekenders away from their B&B), and Dale McAlpine (the Christian street preacher charged with making abusive comments in Cumbria), lauding them as helpless victims of the insidious and evil Liberal Empire.

Admittedly, Dale McAlpine - as misguided and ignorant as his opinions may have been - was a victim of circumstance, and as much as I would love to lock up every homophobic bigot in the country, it's sadly not possible (plus, who would then write opinion columns for the Daily Mail?)

However, the Bulls are a different story. Their decision was deemed illegal and that's that. I'm not saying they're bad people, but in trying to run a business, there are certain standards and regulations that must be honoured. Simple as that. No need to bring Orwellian principles into this.

Which leads on quite nicely to my real problem with this article. That whole "homosexual agenda" business is annoying (as well as inaccurate, dangerous and ignorant of any type of bi or trans activism), but it doesn't get me nearly so much as this:

What was once an attempt to end unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.

What? The actual? Fuck? Bigotry in reverse? So the LGBT community has, through telling children that it's OK to be gay and calling out homophobes when they make bigoted and discriminatory comments and decisions, managed to finally rise up to the point of superiority over the white, middle-class, cisgendered heterosexual males?

The LGBT community is now in a position of power, folks. You heard it from Melanie Phillips first. Might as well pack it all in now, unless you want to live in a godless, hedonistic country with mandatory gay bumsex. In fact, now, it's the cis-hets who have to live in fear of disownment, abuse, bullying, discrimination and attack because of their identities.

It's Cornish B&B owners who have to carefully plan out where they can go on holiday to make sure that their relationship won't get them turned away or attacked by locals.

It's Daily Mail columnists who have to hide who they are for their entire lives until they can summon up the courage to tell their parents, "I write for the Daily Mail" and immediately get kicked out onto the streets.

It's the little heterosexual kids sitting at home or school having to watch television shows, films, books and just general mainstream life where their identity isn't talked about or presented in a reasonable way, but rather is completely nonexistent.

Oh wait, that's not true? So the fact that gay-bashings still occur, that asexual and non-binary gender identities are constantly ignored in favour of a male/female dichotomy (which is also often misassigned to trans individuals), and the fact that social conventions still make articles like this acceptable are still sort of an issue?

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true. Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions.

Yes. Some are more equal than others. But you know what? The LGBT community getting a couple of B&B owners to let them have a room doesn't put us in the green. We're still at a disadvantage, and until people like Melanie Phillips are no longer given a platform for their racist, homophobic and bigoted opinions, there will never be the chance for any sort of real equality.

For those who are interested, this is the complaint I wrote to the PCC regarding this article:

Violation on the grounds of accuracy, part (i); the article deliberately misinterprets the ultimate and intended effects of the governmental plans to include non-sexual LGBT references in the UK curriculum (such as the use of gay characters in role-play situations in language-learning courses), using deliberately sensationalist language such as 'bombarded' and 'brainwash' to imply that LGBT references will replace any existing subject matter.

This is reinforced further by the article's claim, "what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory" - a deliberately inflammatory statement that has no bearing in fact. These changes are not enforcing non-homosexual or non-cisgendered identities on students; rather, they are an attempt to make such issues non-threatening and accessible to children.

Furthermore, the article makes several unsubstantiated or irrelevant claims, such as referencing the DEFRA and Department for Transport's attempts to promote diversity and equal opportunities, tagging these onto the end with no link back to how these would adversely affect cisgendered heterosexuals (whom the article repeatedly lauds as the unsung victims of an increasingly liberal society).

Leading on from that last point, the article also makes several discriminatory remarks on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender. While no individual is explicitly identified and their orientations made the subject of pejorative statements, there are several statements made that suggest that LGBT inclusion and equality is discriminatory to non-LGBT individuals.

There are many comments, but this seems an appropriate example: "What was once an attempt to end ­unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse."

Now, while this sort of comment does not talk about an individual in a prejudiced way, the implications of such a statement are that the plights of individuals in civil rights movements throughout history are no worse than a privileged Daily Mail reader having to watch a gay couple kiss on primetime television, or a B&B owner having to conform to certain industry standards and regulations.

Not only is it grossly inaccurate, but it is also hugely offensive to those who have suffered and, importantly, still do suffer in the name of equality and civil rights. Statements such as these, which imply that LGBT equality has been achieved and that activism is now going the other way towards bigotry, is a subtle prejudiced offense at any individual who is victimised as a result of their identity.

Hipster

So I've been having a nice, relaxing Christmas at home. Arguing with my family over the comparative expertise of mothers and developmental psychologists, dancing around the kitchen to Rihanna and enough booze to make my liver and head go, "Right. That's it. Fuck you too" all count as relaxation in this instance.

However, yesterday was different. Yesterday, my sister went ice skating, and just before she was about to leave, I noticed she had on a pair of these:

I mean, what the actual fuck? My sister is a hipster. I knew it. I fucking knew that this was where we were headed when she started buying 'vintage' clothes. I knew it was a slippery slope, but I didn't realise just how bad it was becoming.

My sister has 20/20 vision. Well, she has no problems with her eyesight that require corrective lenses. In fact, the glasses she was wearing didn't even have lenses. They were just the frames. And, as the more astute readers may remember, she was going ice skating. So she was leaving the house looking like this.

Ugh. I tracked her down later on, after the initial shock had worn off, and told her exactly what was wrong with the glasses.

Me: You can't wear those glasses anymore.

Her: Why not? They look cool.

Me: *shudders* They do not. They make you look like a hipster.

Her: What's a hipster?

Ah, the innocence and naïveté of youth.

Me: A hipster is the worst kind of person. You mark my words; if you wear those glasses too much, then before you know it you'll be prancing around wearing worn-down Converse, nothing but skinny jeans and retro sailor tops, and taking pretentious black-and-white photos of chairs to highlight the untapped depths of your fucking soul. And then you'll write loads of really shit poetry about existentialism and clouds which you'll post on tumblr. Tumblr, FFS!

Her: I don't understand how any of that is a problem.

Me: How are we related?!

Anyway, it carried on like this for a while. I played her this video in an attempt to show her what her future held, but she didn't even seem to care! And then, at one point, she asked me a stumper. A really unsettling question that I found very difficult to answer:

Why do you care? What harm are they doing to you? Just live and let live.

I really couldn't answer. Why can't we all just live and let live? Why don't we all just get along? So we parted ways, neither truly understanding, but both accepting of the other's choices and lifestyles (with the understanding that if she ever misused the word 'ironic', I would end her), and each of us felt much more developed as people for having come to an understanding.

Actually, fuck that. I just remembered this dickhead*. Hipsters can go to hell. A multicoloured, mainstream hell where there is only decent beer and Coldplay just plays on a loop.

Twats.

----------

* I really feel this guy merits a special mention. Not least because he doesn't seem to understand that camera settings exit outside of B&W automatic. I could take that sort of 'atmospheric' bullshit with my phone. Mess around a bit, you cock. That's what a camera like that is for.

Omegle Conversation #1

Because I don't just rant about things. I also troll occasionally. This is a conversation I had with someone on Omegle. There may be some references that you don't get if you haven't seen this, though.

Stranger: Who let the dogs out?
You: I don't know. Ask Karl - he was over by the gate when it happened.
Stranger: damnit Karl, why'd he let them out??
You: I don't know. He does this sort of thing all the time.
Stranger: maybe someone blew a dog whistle?
You: Last week, I asked him to hold my ice cream for a moment and when I came back he'd murdered three people AND eaten my ice cream. :(
You: That's possible.
Stranger: whatttt???? were they at least old? cause they don't count you know
You: Hm. Well, they were getting a bit old for preschool, I suppose...
Stranger: shoof cuz, you can't go killing the children
You: Well, tell that to Karl.
You: I keep trying, but he always distracts me with jokes.
You: Really funny guy, that Karl.
You: Terrific sense of humour - although it can get a bit morbid from time to time.
Stranger: tell me your favorite joke from Karl
You: OK. Knock knock.
Stranger: who's there?
You: Arthur.
Stranger: arthur who?
You: *kicks open door while resident is next to the door, knocking them back onto the glass-topped coffee table, which smashes underneath them and drives shards of glass into their back*
*steps into the room and empties three bullets into resident's skull*
You: Hahaha.
You: Ah, I guess you had to be there.
You: He's a lot better at telling them.
Stranger: Well as long as I'm not the resident
You: Hm. I hadn't thought of it like that.
You: Ah well, it would never be me anyway. I never answer the door during the day.
Stranger: what if its an important package?
You: I make Karl get it. He likes killing postmen - they can run faster than most other people, so it's more of a challenge.
Stranger: is Karl huma?
You: I think it's all the running from rottweilers they do.
Stranger: human*?
You: No. He's a llama.
You: But he wears a hat, so that's a bit human.
Stranger: yeah, if you put a rock in pants it becomes human you know
You: Well, I would test that, but I don't wear pants.
Stranger: so you must wear a kilt?
You: Nope. I don't wear anything except a hat.
Stranger: if its a bowler than that is perfectly acceptable
You: Alas, it's a trilby.
Stranger: is it brown? are you indiana jones?
You: Nope. It's orange, with sparkles.
Stranger: nope, you lie.
You: Well, that's a fair point. I actually have no idea what colour it is. I can't see the top of my head.
Stranger: I can, but thats only cause I have three eyes
You: Oh really? Where?
Stranger: on my head, silly
Your conversational partner has disconnected.

Devil: a diatribe

The following is a diatribe I wrote when I first saw Devil, a film from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan. It also happens to be where the title of this blog comes from, so I thought I should probably post it, just for a sense of background. Enjoy.

--------------------------------

Today I went to see the 14:50 showing of 'Devil', the latest film from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan. Apparently he was one of the head writers on this, rather than the director, which I must say is a small blessing. If he's the writer, though, then I would put him somewhere with Stephenie Meyer and James Patterson in the 'Do not permit typewriters' pen. And then set the pen on fire.

My problems with this film are numerous and rambling. That was originally going to read 'threefold', as I spent the entire hour-long bus journey home trying to condense them into a vaguely coherent argument, but I simply found it impossible. As such, I'm simply going to take a page from M. Night's book and write until my hand hurts - except that, unlike him, I've actually put some thought into this.

WARNING: This post contains spoilers. Well, I say spoil....

WARNING #2: Actually, it's probably best to watch the film first anyway, if only because there's so much wrong with it that I haven't been able to make this critique very coherent, so it may be a bit difficult to understand without having first seen it.

Problems with 'Devil'

1) In the first scene, the camera pans across a breathtaking cityscape - a panoramic view of an urban metropolis. Unfortunately, so many films start off with such a shot that the director (John Dowdle, for those who want to pen a letter) obviously decided to liven things up a bit by flipping the camera upside down. While this attempt to break into the Australian market was admirable,
I can't help but feel it was somewhat misguided in that it just made me feel a bit sick.

2) The story takes place in a high rise office building (number 333 on the street - OMG! A reference!), and is narrated by the devout Hispanic security guard, Ramirez. First of all, Google "stock Hispanic names". Don't literally do that, as the first link is a virus, but in a fair and just world, Ramirez would be repeated so many times that Firefox would turn the default language to Spanish in less time than you could say, "¡Dios mío!"

Seriously, it seems that, in order to defeat the Devil, all you need is a feisty Mexican with a crucifix. They are impervious to evil, apparently because their mothers read them the creepiest bedtime stories since The Little Mermaid. Yes, this entire story was, purely by coincidence, told in excruciating detail to the one character that was absolutely guaranteed to be ignored when his panicky, pidgin cries of "¡Es el Diablo!" erupt without any more evidence than would be necessary to get a black man beaten up by police in New York (except for the toast - I'll mention that later)

3) Inventive camera angles aside, however, there is much more to be said about the first scene. First of all, the story starts off with a suicide, as so many of M. Night's films seem to (seriously, this guy is so obsessed with people killing themselves that I would take a closer look into any suspicious deaths within a tri-county area). This is built up as an important plot point as, whenever the Devil walks among humans (Ramirez explains), he thoughtfully heralds his murderous rampage with a suicide. Most people just call ahead, but whatever.

That being said, you'd think that such an 'important' thing would at least be mentioned after the first ten minutes, but no. The first scene is spent dwelling on how a truck magically managed to drive itself two blocks and round a corner (I assume due to bollards made of rubber and some deus ex machina) and then brought up for about twenty seconds later on when a suicide note is found. Despite this note being very out of the ordinary for a suicide note (the guy mentions the Devil. It must be sorcery!) and relevant to the situation (they've mentioned the fact that the Devil is in the lift about six times by this point), the Detective in charge just completely neglects to share this piece of information with anyone.

Mind you, I guess it's to be expected, as it takes most of the characters half the film to work out that there even was a suicide. One guy's actually standing next to the van when the body falls down, and still doesn't notice. And the window he fell through? The janitor immediately starts clearing up, completely ignoring the size of the hole and the probability that something fell through it.

Do we ever even learn the name of suicide victim? If we do, it's mentioned once and immediately forgotten. Do we know why s/he jumped through a window instead of doing the much more conscientious act of going up onto the roof so that there would be less clearing up to do? Do we even know what s/he had done to merit being driven to suicide by the Devil? The whole premise of the film is that they've all done something horrible that they have to atone for, but none of that's ever mentioned for this unfortunate person.

4) Do you know how many times people get stuck in lifts? Well, it's not that often, but we're massively paranoid about it. All of us have such a healthy dose of claustrophobia that we build in a lot of safety features into them. However, when a lift stops, the safest place is generally inside the compartment, which is why those hatches in the ceiling are generally bolted shut, so that idiots can't climb up and kill themselves trying to shimmy up the cables. So when the Hot White Guy (don't know his name, don't particularly care) gets up to knock open the hatch so that Black Tough Guy can get some fresh air, it's either a load of bullshit, or he's got some sort of superhuman strength.

Also, in this film, no fewer than two lift cables just snap for no reason and fall to the bottom. Now, not only has this only ever happened once, when a plane flew into a New York skyscraper, and killed no one, but this happens twice. In the same building. On the same day. And no one cares. In fact, when the first one happens, the technician who's nearly crushed by it doesn't even raise the alarm, despite the fact that the whole film is about people who are trapped in one of the other lifts. Seriously, not even mentioned.

And that's not the end of the factual anomalies. One of the security guard (not the Hispanic one, obviously, as he has Jesus on his side) gets electrocuted (and he bloody well deserved it, too - I cheered) when he lifts a live cable out of a conveniently placed puddle with a piece of wood. Despite the fact that the electrical charge is apparently strong enough to remain in a puddle that's not connected to any electrical supply, but not strong enough to jump the two feet across the wooden plank, after being electrocuted, the guy then manages to make it up a flight of stares and into the crowded lobby before finally dying of his own stupidity.

5) The detective in charge of getting the people out of the lift (a job he fails at spectacularly) has a back story, which he insists on reciting to every single character who can be arsed to listen. Seriously, by the time it gets to the third time, I no longer care that his wife and son died in a hit-and-run five years ago (I wouldn't be surprised if this were the fifth anniversary, it's so cliché). But, in the obligatory M. Night twist, it turns out that Hot White Guy, the only one to survive the lift, was the one driving the car! ZOMGWTFLOLBBQLGBT!!!eleven!!111

WHAT A SURPRISE! Well, actually, I didn't see this coming, but it was simply because I'd stopped caring at this point. So congratulations, M. Night, you managed to pull the wool over my eyes by disguising it under the shittest film I've seen in a long time. But the real kicker is that this guy is finally the only one left alive in the lift when (another twist!) one of the previous victims stands up, revealing herself to be the Devil (gah! Oh my God! This is a rollercoaster!)

When confronted by the elderly woman that he believed had been hanged by a light fitting about three deaths earlier, Hot White Guy confesses to the manslaughter with tears in his eyes as the shocked police officer watches in horror. And then, of course, the old woman eviscerates him as punishment for his- Oh wait, no. She says, "Well, bugger. You said you're sorry. Alright then." and leaves. I'm sorry, all he had to do was apologise? What about the others in the lift? None of them had killed anyone, and you stabbed, twisted and bit all of them without so much as a by-your-leave.

So what's the deal? Why can that one guy get away with it because he said sorry? And if apologising is so important, what about the innocent people the Devil killed? Flowers to the family? A card? "My bad" written on the walls in the victims' blood? Because the omniscient Hispanic man makes it clear that the Devil has no problem killing innocent people if they get in his way, but if the first words to blurt out of your mouth when confronted with the asphyxiated corpse of a woman you saw die about half an hour ago are anything approaching an incoherent apology, then that's just dandy? What gives, Satan?!

And even beyond that, the police officer who's life was ruined when the guy decided that a late-night beer run was a great idea then, on the way to the police station, tells the survivor that he forgives him. What?? This guy killed your family in a horribly predictable and awfully convenient plot twist, and you're OK with that? Yes, so you've seen too many people die today to feel the same burning desire for revenge that has been your driving force for so long, but still, you still don't think it deserves a bit more of a shout? Gosh, no wonder Jamie felt the need to throw a chocolate wrapper at your pathetic little face.

I think we've worked out how M. Night Shyamalan devises his plots

6) What, exactly, happens next? I mean, look at what you're left with at the end of the film: a lift full of three dead bodies, a missing granny, an admitted hit-and-run driver covered in other people's blood and a video showing said granny rise from the dead and disappear during a blackout. Not to mention a wise Mexican with a crucifix claiming Beelzebub was in that lift. Pretty convincing stuff. So what you've basically got is irrefutable proof of the supernatural - and, while any YouTube comment-writer will be quick to say, "lol its obviusl ya fake u n00bs", the authorities in charge of such things will still look twice, and conspiracy theorists will pretty much jizz their pants with glee.

And if the video evidence isn't accepted, then what? You've got a guy who's major crime was having a few brews before some bint who didn't believe in seatbelts drove in front of him as the only survivor in a room where he was the only possible suspect for all three of their brutal murders. And with two suspicious deaths happening around the same time, he's going to the chair so fast he won't even be able to utter another (what I suppose is supposed to be heartfelt but just comes across as whiny) apology.

7) And this is really what I think is my biggest problem with this film. When Omniscient Hispanic Ramirez first postulates that the Devil walks among them and has chosen a lift to exact an extremely showy and incriminating punishment against evildoers, people predictably don't believe him - Mistake #1. But it's understandable. After all, would YOU believe a Mexican? No, of course not, because all true Americans know that Mexicans are dirty.

However, then he brings out The Science. To prove his hypothesis beyond all reasonable doubt, he conducts one of the most rigorous experiments I have ever seen - he flips a piece of toast. When it lands jam-side down, he claims this to be because the Devil always makes everything go wrong. "When He's around, children hit their heads on tables, toast lands jelly side down" - I wish I were making this up, but this is as close to a direct quote as I can remember. Let's look at that again. Toast lands jelly side down. Well, that's it, Q.E. motherf*cking D. Let's bring in a priest. Unfortunately, in a film titled "Devil", no one thought to summon the clergy, and so six people died, lots of lawyers' days were disrupted and someone had to replace a window.

What a bother.

But then, we can't forget what should really redeem this film; the moral. And the moral of the story is, of course, that Mexican fairytales are unnecessarily detailed and bloody creepy as hell. No? Well, maybe if you apologise, the Devil will just say OK, no matter what you've done? Hm, maybe not. OK, how about this: when trapped in a lift with the Devil, even offering to sell her a mattress will not save you.

Seriously, I made none of this shit up.

Gay adverts

I have an exam in about 33 hours, so naturally I have spent the last six or so eating Starburst and watching videos on YouTube. And, as is so often the case in procrastination, I have discovered a new passion for argument. I need to express an opinion on something - anything - and as such have settled on this: gay adverts. Be they pro- or anti-gay, there's a lot to say about them.

The first video can be found here, but I've nicked the video to post, as you can see. It's a video from Dare To Stand, a radio show in Arizona. Now, I have no objection to people having religious belief. I'm writing a blog post at half past midnight to a non-existent audience and more alcohol than revision in my system, so I really can't criticise anyone for their lifestyle choices, but this video is terrible on so many objective levels that I feel pretty secure in ranting.

First of all, the whole premise of the advert seems to be attacking the Day of Silence, which for those of you who don't know is a day taken to commemorate and raise awareness of anti-LGBT bullying and harrassment. Now, any day that says, "Hey, here's an idea. How about we stop making kids kill themselves?" is a pretty good day in my book. But apparently these Baptist f*ckwads have a problem with it.

Apparently schools up and down the country are being "coerced" into remembering victims of homo-, bi-, trans- and other phobic bullying. You can't be serious, I hear you cry. My children?? Showing a degree of respect towards what is a huge tragedy? Putting a nickle in the Haiti earthquake box was enough conscientiousness for one year, thank you very much.

The video shows a bunch of good, Christian children whose only desire is to sit in a classroom and read the Bible (I'm not making that up. Check around 3:30) living in a monochromatic, dreary world where the only colour is the good ol' Stars and Stripes and the teacher looks like a cross between Nurse Ratched and the star of a Nazi Dominatrix porno.

The thing is, I've watched the video twice and I'm not sure how it's supposed to sway people. It's really just reporting neutral facts in such a hilariously biased tone that anyone who's, you know, intelligent will be horribly offended, while those who agree with the sentiments will just nod and reload the barrels of their sawn-off shotgun.

I'm not going to say much more about that, as it annoys me so much I can't actually formulate words. Maybe that's the marketing technique - just create something so offensive and long (srsly - 6:31? For that long a video, I at least want an explosion or celebrity cameo) that no one can form a coherent argument against it.

Well, maybe one that's easier to criticise, then:

Wait, what? Are you seriously...? This is just a bunch of kids asking questions about sexuality and gender. I get the premise, I really do; changing marriage laws will confuse the children. You know what else confuses children? Fucking everything. They're children. You ban things that confuse children and all you're left with is a shitload of Sesame Street and ice cream.

Let's have a look at the questions. These are not difficult questions to clear up, even for the simplest of children:

1. "Grandma, if Grandpa was a girl, it'd be OK. You could still be married." - OK, this isn't a question, but yes. That's a pretty concise and accurate assessment of the situation. Have a cookie.
2. "God created Adam and Eve? That was so old fashioned." - Well, yeah, but at the very earliest we're talking 5,000 years ago, love. Tamagotchis were only twelve years ago, and they're even more old fashioned.
   
3. "He should've created Anna and Eve." - No. That's just silly. How could you have continued a species like that? What he should've done is created Anna, Adam, Eve and Steve, so that the human race wasn't a massive group of inbred freaks, and that after procreation, the four of them could couple off however they liked.
   
4. "If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?" - You wouldn't have one. But you'd have two dads, so you'd be in a much better position to beat up any little shits who made fun of you for it.
5. "I'm confused." - Of course you are. You're, what, five? Shoes with laces confuse you.

My favourite bit is, "Kids will be taught a new way of thinking." That's good, because you know something? Kids are always changing the way they think. Until I was eight, I thought babies were something parents bought from the government. If kids never changed the way they think, you'd have an entire generation of adults going, "I'm sorry, Johnson, but we're going to have to let you go on the grounds of you being a nasty poo-head."

Of course, not all adverts with LGBT people are negative. And, because I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy now for having ranted a bit, I'm going to post a few that are a bit more cheery.

Ahh, the wonders of Pepsi...

I love the expressions on his mates' faces at the end.

Normally I hate McDonald's, but in this case I'll make an exception.

There are some people who get upset about this, saying that it's suggesting that all gay people are closeted or some such nonsense. Those people can fuck right off, because I love this advert. :D

Renault Twingo - We live in modern times.

I love this for so many reasons. The expression on his dad's face when he realises who's in the car, and then the relief at the end. It's like a hug for your insides.