Let's Talk About Toxic Nerd Culture...

I don’t know how many of you are aware of this, but I’ve been writing for Nintendo Enthusiast since late-May of this year. It’s tough and doesn’t pay well, as most writing tends to be, but it’s been providing me with great experience. I’m not only flexing my editorial muscles, I’m learning to be succinct and adapt my style to SEO’s algorithm. But don’t take my word for it, you can find my profile here.

Unfortunately, I’ve also been reminded of the internet’s nastiness. Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter what I write. I can put out something well thought-out, but if it dares to be out-of-the-box…you know. It’s like I said in a recent Facebook post, the internet won’t hesitate to skewer me. It’s that unforgiving.

It’d be one issue if this were about me. I don’t like ableism or bigotry, but I’m an adult. I know how to laugh off slurs, I’ve been doing it for years. And none of this is new by now. But it’s not only about me. The internet, or nerds in general, are a toxic and vitriolic group of individuals.

This isn’t an original sentiment, either. Nerds being gross, bigoted and mean-spirited to outsiders was made well-known in 2014. It became public knowledge because of GamerGate, despite what its defenders may claim. But I’d argue that this goes back even further. Like Me Too and sexual impropriety, nerds being bigoted to outsiders spans decades. However, for the sake of tangibility, I’ll stick with when I first noticed this behaviour.

The year was 2008. Super Smash Bros. Brawl had recently been released. Despite strong sales and excellent reviews, a certain backlash began to circulate. Gaming nerds, who’d anticipated this game’s release, were unhappy with the final product. Yet instead of voicing their concerns maturely and thoughtfully, they acted petty and yelled down fans. I should know, I was one of those fans.

I can’t find exact quotes anymore, it’s been 11 years, but I remember the in-fighting. I remember the complaints over how Super Smash Bros. Brawl was “for babies”, as well as how The Subspace Emissary was “boring trash”. I couldn’t understand how a piece of programmable plastic could drive so many of my fellow gamers that crazy. Then again, it was already a-year-and-a-half into the Wii’s lifespan. If the reaction to the Wii’s existence was indication, I shouldn’t have been surprised.

Nintendo’s E3 conference that year didn’t help. Gaming nerds were waiting for them to kill it, only to be let-down. They were expecting something, anything, to be thrown their way, but they ended up with Wii Music instead. And sure, Wii Music was probably not the best way to end a gaming exposition, but you’d think the world was ending tomorrow. Nerd culture wouldn’t let it go, something they kept reminding everyone about for a year.

This was around the time I started writing for ScrewAttack as a blogger. Initially, my stuff sucked. But while I’d improve, I noticed that the toxicity within gaming nerd culture wasn’t getting better. If anything, it was getting worse. And I, a guy with special needs, kept experiencing that first-hand.

My first real brush-up with this toxicity came with my first rant on ScrewAttack, which I remade for this blog. In it, I discussed gaming difficulty, how subjective it was, and why demanding a uniform standard was gatekeeping. Looking back, the rant was awful. But the responses I received weren’t helpful either.

The next few years would see me flirt with this issue off and on, until 2014 hit. I was in a bad space at the time, too: it was the Summer of my dad’s heart attack, Israel was at war (again) and I had undiagnosed mental health issues. But once nerd gaming’s toxic elements began merging with mainstream toxicity via GamerGate, I was done with it all. I’d long-since moved away from gaming as a hobby, but I couldn’t escape the daily attacks on “SJW culture”. It should also come as no surprise that GamerGate would become Comicsgate when games were no longer the direct target of outrage.

Which leads to now. Having come back to gaming via my position means that I’m seeing this vitriol all-over. And it’s still really bad, even if I’ve learned to not let it get to me. What’s worse is how nerds have also doubled-down with the rise of Me Too and its direct offenders, many of whom are nerds themselves. It’s as if everything has come full-circle. And I’m tired.

I don’t mean to blast nerds collectively here. I’m a nerd myself. I also think nerd culture has a valuable role in shaping art and entertainment collectively. But shaming people and using ableist language isn’t helpful. It’s reductive, and it makes us look childish.

I also think attacking those who think unconventionally, like myself, isn’t flattering. It doesn’t matter if I don’t like hard video games. It shouldn’t be an issue that I’m against time gimmicks. And it especially shouldn’t be a problem that I think newer Pokémon games lack the streamlined simplicity of older ones. You’re entitled to think differently, but ableism doesn’t help your cause.

It’s not only me, like I said. I’ve seen creators, developers and writers get attacked for expressing themselves unconventionally. I’ve seen marginalized folks be ostracized for simply demanding to be heard. I’ve seen it all, and it stinks. And it doesn’t have to be this way.

Nerd culture is in an exciting time right now. Classic books, games and comics are being adapted for the mainstream, and they’re being adapted well. They’re also getting the awards and recognition that nerds craved for decades. Even portrayals of nerds in media, like in Stranger Things, are becoming much more respectful, instead of the garbage we used to see. Being a nerd, essentially, is cool now! So why are we shutting that out?

It’s like we’re stuck in the 80’s and early-90’s with our mindsets, acting like the bubble is still super-enclosed. True, it sucked being a nerd for a long time. I remember being picked on by other kids, sometimes violently. But that was then, and many of my tormentors have long since extended olive branches. If they’ve made an effort, then why can’t I?

By not recognizing this, nerds are isolating themselves further. By continuing to live in the past, nerds are becoming hostile and toxic. And by continuing to harbour deep resentments, nerds are becoming more dangerous than their original tormentors. This isn’t healthy.

I wouldn’t be saying all this if I didn’t think we could be above pettiness. But we can. Yet we’re not. And it worries me because it’s not helping our public image. It also worries me because it’s causing irreparable harm. And is that what we really want?

All About the Star Wars!

Anyone who’s been following this blog since inception is no doubt aware that an earlier post discussed Petr Harmy’s attempt at restoring the original Star Wars films for an audience who didn’t grow up with them. It still sounds like a dream come true, but I’ve since discovered that it requires downloading a patch onto the store-bought movies. Essentially, it’s extra work, and it’s risky. Not to mention that Disney’s most-likely caught on. No amount of hesitation can be accurately put to words here.

Regardless, it’s incredibly noble. The authenticity of the original Star Wars films has been game since the late-90’s, when George Lucas re-released them in an “updated format” for the original film’s 20th anniversary. It’s no surprise that fans didn’t react kindly, but this became commonplace for the next two-plus decades. Whenever a new release was made available, it was guaranteed to be full of edits, updates and changes. If there ever was someone more-famously associated with the phrase “death of the author”, it was George Lucas.

What makes this complicated is when it impacts people like me. See, I was born in 1990. I was -13 years old when Star Wars Ep. IV: A New Hope debuted, and I grew up in a decade where its impact was already felt. By the time I could walk and talk, the films had already been re-released on VHS. My earliest memory with Star Wars was seeing Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace in theatres for a friend’s 9th birthday. So while technically a fan, I was a late-fan.

Being able to watch unaltered versions of the original films has always been a pipe-dream. True, I watched the movies in high school, but I didn’t properly appreciate them and the versions were probably altered. What I’m referring to, however, is enjoying these movies, uncut, as an adult. I want to see Han shoot first. I want to witness the ugly deformity that was Emperor Palpatine pre-Ian McDiarmid getting the role. And I want to see Darth Vader throw Palpatine off a ledge anticlimactically without shouting “No!” I want to see all of that.

But I can’t. And this frustrates me to no end. It’s not like I don’t know what happens, I’ve seen bits-and-pieces of the films on YouTube, so why can’t I? Why must the rights-holders to these movies be so petty? What gives?

I can live with people trashing The Prequels at this point, as every possible argument has been posited. I can also live with videos nitpicking the Special Editions, as they all have validity. But it sucks that I can’t see the unaltered versions of three classics in 2019. It sucks because it’s petty, and it sucks because it excludes me from an important part of Star Wars discourse.

I’ve wanted it for so long that it’s not even funny. When Disney purchased Lucasfilm in 2012, a part of me hoped that I’d be able to see my dream come true. It never happened. And when Disney purchased 21st Century Fox, regardless of my thoughts on that deal, a part of me hoped again that I’d be able to see my dream come true. That never happened either. In the end, I’ve been left frustrated for a good part of two decades. I’m beginning to wonder if it’ll happen at all.

I wouldn’t be as annoyed if reality weren’t such a mess right now. But it is. Corporations are looting the Earth, people are dying and politicians aren’t caring. Considering The UN’s scary prognosis about the state of climate change, that I can’t experience a sliver of joy because movie companies are being jerks angers me. Then again, welcome to real-life?

So Disney, Lucasfilm, Turner Classics, George Lucas, or whomever it is I have to ask this to: please let it happen. Please put aside your egos and let me watch The Original Trilogy the way it was intended. I don’t care how, via digital or physical, let me enjoy that one sliver of pleasure before I die. It’s been 42 years since the original debuted in theatres. That’s more than long enough.

I’m sure you’d also make lots of people really happy. Star Wars is a lucrative IP right now, especially with it being owned by Disney. It’s cool to like the franchise again, and its movies are consistently breaking box-office records. If the uncut, unaltered versions of the original films came out now, people would eat them up like the world was ending tomorrow. That the higher-ups are sitting on gold out of spite is infuriating. And don’t the higher-ups like gold? Isn’t that their bread-and-butter?

Finally, some parting words to those who hate Disney and wish it’d burn: don’t be this way. Don’t let your frustrations with how the company’s run become a sticking point for not letting people be able to watch these movies legally and uncut. Yes, it sucks that Disney’s absorbing everything and violating anti-trust laws. And yes, it’s bad for creativity. But as we’ve seen through the recent Spider-Man debacle, this sort of squabbling hurts consumers the most. And is it really that big a crime to want to see the unaltered versions of The Original Trilogy? Is that an unreasonable request?

Junk Drawer: Spiders, Matrixes and Anchors

This episode’s brought to you by the letters “W, T” and “F”.

The big story right now is Spider-Man. If you’ll recall, Sony and Disney came to an agreement to share the IP in 2015, following the failure of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and some behind-the-scenes complications. Despite shifting around The MCU to accommodate the web crawler, fans were excited; after all, Spider-Man in The MCU was every superhero fan’s dream! And now it was happening! And Marvel was one step closer to being whole! What could go wrong?

If recent news is indication, a lot. For starters, the agreement Sony and Disney had was 95%-5%. This meant that while Spider-Man was technically part of Marvel, Sony could still make films with him and his villains separate from The MCU. Additionally, both studios could only make a proper Spider-Man movie if it included Peter Parker in some way. And any and all merchandise sales had to be Sony-exclusive.

Disney, obviously, wasn’t happy with the agreement. They wanted a 50% share, not part, and after two films in a row made $1 billion at the box-office, the deal began to fall apart and Sony threatened to take back the character. If this sounds messy, it is. And the average consumer’s picking up the tab. Isn’t corporate politics fun?

I’m won’t pretend I’m an expert, but fans are being a touch irrational. On the side of Disney and Marvel, while this is a big loss, I don’t think being greedy is reasonable. While Disney’s been doing quite well this past decade, they’ve also been slowly taking over Hollywood. They purchased 21st Century Fox in 2017, for example, and acquired a ton of new franchises and IPs. They then laid off hundreds of low-level workers, cancelled lots of really interesting projects (like Jojo Rabbit) and completely retooled the studio. Sure, they might’ve acquired X-Men and Fantastic Four, saving them from further abuse, but at what cost?

Still, I don’t think Sony’s fans are being reasonable either. It might be “great” that they’re “sticking it to the man”, but that misreads the reality that is Sony as a company. Not only are they also “the man”, but they’ve grossly-mismanaged a lot of their own projects. And this extends to Spider-Man, as for every Spider-Man/Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, they’ve given us Spider-Man 3, Venom and The Amazing Spider-Man movies. This doesn’t cover the behind-the-scenes complications and failed projects, which I don’t have time to cover.

Essentially, this is a lose-lose situation for everyone, especially Spider-Man fans. And while I’m not suggesting Disney buy Sony Entertainment, because that’d be terrible for industry creativity, I don’t think rooting for everything to continue the way it’s going is helpful. I want another, better deal to come out of this, one that’d benefit everyone. I also want Spider-Man to complete his MCU trilogy, because that cliff-hanger was brutal! And I want Ike Perlmutter to not have an excuse to mess with Spider-Man in the comics, something he’s been known to do to Marvel’s other properties out of spite.

A lesser-known and overshadowed story was the announcement that The Matrix franchise is getting a fourth entry, courtesy of director Lana Wachowski. While rumours about another film had been floating around for a while, this announcement has made them official. I don’t know when the movie will release, but for fans of the franchise, which I half-am, this is exciting. As is the news that Keanu Reeves will be returning alongside Carrie-Ann Moss. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly.

I have some questions: what will the movie be called? When will it take place? How is Trinity still alive? How is Neo still alive? And if they’re planning to have it take place after The Matrix Revolutions, are they retconning that film’s ending?

I’m also concerned because of Lana and Lily Wachowski’s legacies. I know they’re darlings in the trans community, and I respect that. I’m also aware that they’re the rare breed of modern directors, like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, who receive the time and financial freedom to do whatever they want. But while that’s all fine and dandy, they haven’t exactly “delivered” post-The Matrix. The sequels to their most-beloved film didn’t do so hot, and every project since has disappointed. Even their most-ambitious movie since, Cloud Atlas, was a bit of a mixed-bag.

I don’t want to seem like I’m unfairly attacking Lana and Lily Wachowski. I’m sure they’re lovely people, and they seem to have resonated with a lot of moviegoers. But that doesn’t mean that I’m gonna praise their work for being out-there and weird. M. Night Shyamalan’s also out-there and weird, as his body of work has shown. He’s equally as pretentious and self-indulgent, and it shows too.

I don’t feel like praising directors for being inventive when their projects keep frustrating and failing to resonate. That’s dishonest, reductive and unhelpful. Remember, movies are a business. If they don’t produce results, then there’s no point in throwing money at them. To paraphrase the late-Albert Einstein, that’s insanity.

But who knows? Maybe Lana Wachowski will do this movie justice. It’s her baby, and she clearly seems to care. I’ve also seen bigger comebacks, so it’s possible that this could end up good. But I’m not fully on-board yet.

If anyone Follows me on Twitter, you’ll know that I was sexually assaulted when I was 7. I haven’t exactly kept quiet about that. I’m also pretty much in-favour of Me Too, thinking that, in some ways, it has lots of room to tackle abuse culture. And while it may not be the only place where this is rampant, I’ve hoped for years that the stories at Fox News would finally get their chance in the spotlight. I’ve hoped for this since Bill O’Reilly’s assault settlement.

And now, as if the Lords of Justice have heard me, we’re getting this story at the end of 2019. The movie’s called Bombshell, and it takes place in the years leading up to the aforementioned settlement. The trailer was short and short on dialogue, but it said everything it needed to. I think the most-amazing part was how well-realized Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman and Margot Robbie are as their respective characters. In particular, I’m most impressed by Theron as Megyn Kelly.

There’s a lot to really talk about, but since I’m not a film analyst I’ll stay away from getting too in-depth. What catches my eye, however, is how intense the 90-seconds of footage are. Especially in the elevator! The entire time, I was waiting for someone to say something, anything. Yet no words materialized. But I’m not angry, because the tension and body language of Theron, Kidman and Robbie said it all.

I hope Bombshell dissects the sexism and bigotry that permeates Fox News. I know it’s not exactly cool to dunk on them anymore, but this could make for an interesting film. Because sexual assault, especially under the late-Roger Ailes, was pretty rampant, and this is a story worth telling. It’s a story that I’d also like to see with-say-CNN, or MSNBC. It’s a story about the cutthroat nature of work culture, essentially.

Ultimately, I hope this movie’s success makes more people comfortable to talk about their Me Too stories. Sexual assault/harassment and rape culture haven’t been properly dealt with in the past. Now that the dirty laundry’s being aired, that could start the healing process. Even if it doesn’t lead to justice, simply talking is therapeutic. I know that sharing my story has been helpful, especially with those willing to listen.

That about does it for now. Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next time.

The Israel "Thing"...

This past week has been frustrating for Jews, Zionists, or both. What began as misplaced has spiralled into a disaster that keeps getting worse. Whenever the issue is brought up, it immediately becomes an argument. And, above all, no sense of peace seems possible. It’s tiring.

Most of you know what I’m referring to, but for those unaware, I’m talking about Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and the decision by the Israeli government to ban them entry to the country. This reverses a decision months prior to allow them in, despite their anti-Israel remarks. The timing is strange and unusual, yet because the situation doesn’t want to disappear, I figured I’d share my thoughts in as level-headed a manner as possible. Here goes:

Israel’s decision was wrong.

Israel not letting Tlaib and Omar into the country was bad. Let’s be clear on that. I’m not saying that because I approve of Tlaib and Omar’s past remarks, quite the opposite, but because of why they instituted the ban. This wasn’t a push of their own will, but the consequence of a Tweet by Donald Trump. Given how loose-lipped and irrational Trump’s Tweets are, this feels like the country paying lip service to him out of fear.

What’s interesting is the lengths at which many Jewish organizations, some vehemently pro-Zionist, have denounced this. The groups range from the obvious, like If Not Now and JVP, to some less-so, like The URJ and The USCJ. The outcry even reached AIPAC and J-Street, which is surprising. It seems like many Jews, mostly younger ones, were unhappy, feeling it to be reactionary. And given how everything has played out, it’s easy to see why.

I, personally, think that it’s tone-deaf. Ignoring my own thoughts, or Tlaib and Omar as individuals, that Israel was quick to acquiesce to Trump shows an element of weakness. This is a man who runs his mouth on anything and everything without acknowledging how it influences others, even when he appears to “have a valid point”. This is a man who instituted a transgender ban in The US military based on faulty science, after all. I don’t think his Tweet should’ve been taken at face-value.

It also bothers me because of the implications. If this were the reverse, and an Israeli politician were banned from entering The US, there’d be outcry from Jews all-over the country, possibly the world. People would be protesting, letters and angry Tweets would be written to congress, it’d get messy. And it’d probably be justified. So why’s the reverse okay?

I don’t think this is the kind of attention Israel needs. It already has to contend with a poorly-worded Nation State bill from last year, as well as a re-election due to Netanyahu, who barely won, being unable to wrangle a coalition government. The country has also faced criticism for its paranoid, racial profiling, as well as the Ethiopian Jewry riots of late. I’m willing to defend Israel for most of its issues, but this ban? I can’t. Which leads me to my next point…

How Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have been handling this is disgraceful.

Tlaib and Omar haven’t been helping their cause. If anything, they’ve been hurting it. It was revealed that their itineraries didn’t include visiting any Jewish sites, only Palestinian ones. That alone isn’t the issue, but considering the beliefs of the organizations they’d planned their trips with, it raises red flags. On that front alone, I’m worried.

But outside of that, Tlaib and Omar have taken this rather poorly. When Israel reversed their ruling for Tlaib and allowed her to visit her grandmother, she refused. Even if she was “sticking to her guns”, I doubt her grandmother would’ve been happy. (Then again, what do I know?) And both women have shared cartoons from a Holocaust-denying group regarding the “censorship” of them. I expected better, but I was wrong. This is adult-equivalent of a child breaking your TV set because you won’t let them play video games. I’d advise a “time out” policy, but I wouldn’t want to infantilize fully-grown women.

There are other problems that’ve arisen from this, but I’ll stick with that for now.

The way conservatives have been handling this isn’t much better.

In my critique of Omar’s “Benjamins” Tweet, I mentioned the hypocrisy of the right. Given the feedback from a Twitter Mutual, I think this should be stressed even more: the American right shouldn’t be calling this out. They haven’t earned the outrage, especially not when people like Kevin McCarthy and Steve King are in their caucus. It’s not only hypocritical, it also adds unnecessary fuel to the fire. And it raises questions.

Let’s zoom-in on that last part: why is the right making such a stink about this? They largely support Donald Trump, a loose-cannon who says what he feels like without consequence. They also were fine with an Antisemitic preacher giving the opening speech at The Jerusalem Embassy’s dedication, as well as a “Christian Rabbi” giving a speech at a Michigan rally following the Pittsburgh shooting. They shouldn’t be opening their mouths; if anything, they’re equally as guilty of Jew-hatred.

I also find the whole “why do Jews vote Democrat?” question to be irritating. Ignoring how the question’s almost always rooted in Antisemitism/self-hatred, it ignores how toxic Republicans have become in recent decades. Yes, there are awful Democrats too. Yes, bigotry isn’t an exclusively-Republican issue. But considering how people like Steve King and Mitch McConnell are Republicans, not Democrats, that should ring alarm bells.

As for the claim that Democrats “hate Jews”? I don’t think that’s any truer now than 30 years ago. And even if it is, so what? You really think Republicans are better? The party only cares about Israel because of The Second Coming, they couldn’t give a damn otherwise. No American party really “loves” Jews anyway, they merely tolerate them. And Jewish voters are aware of this.

I don’t want to romanticize Tlaib and Omar’s behaviour. Unlike many of their defenders, I don’t think that’s helpful or healthy. But to use them as weapons against the Democratic party, or even Jews in general, is equally unhelpful and unhealthy. They’re two politicians out of hundreds, especially in a party that’s that diverse. Besides, Antisemitism’s been spiking due to a rise in fascism and white supremacy. Tlaib and Omar becoming martyrs for a bad cause is something we don’t need too.

So that’s my stance on this matter. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go dunk my head in ice water.

On Once Upon a Time In Hollywood's Messed-Up Ending...

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood’s an unusual film in Quentin Tarantino’s filmography. Despite being directed by someone known for excessive violence, foot fetishism, long stretches of dialogue and f-bombs, it’s surprisingly restrained. The violence is almost non-existent, the foot fetishism downplayed, the dialogue minimal and the f-bombs sparse. It’s mostly tame and ambience-heavy, fooling you into thinking he might not have even directed it. The exception is the end-scene, where Tarantino, like a man in a chastity belt for three weeks, lets loose and shows his true colours. And the end-result’s really something.

(By the way, spoilers.)

The scene begins with four hippie-turned-assassins parking their car outside the mansion of Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. After a brief altercation with Rick Dalton, the four drive to a nearby corner and plan their attack. They decide to go after Dalton instead, as murdering a TV celebrity would be more interesting. When one of them gets cold feet and escapes with the car, the four three of them head to Dalton’s house and stumble upon Dalton’s stunt-double, Cliff Booth, Dalton’s half-asleep wife and Booth’s dog. What follows is one of the bloodiest and most-excessive moments in a Tarantino movie, which says a lot considering his filmography.

When I first saw this scene, I was shocked. I wasn’t expecting it to go this way. I was vaguely-aware of the real-life story of Sharon Tate, so seeing a curveball like this was surprising. It didn’t help that everything to that point had been building to her death, even including a clock and a narrator who was setting the stage for what’d unfold. Ignoring how brutal the scene was, it made me feel like I’d walked into the wrong screening, a feeling that lingered during my walk home.

I was also, at least initially, offended. True, Inglourious Basterds offended me far more, as it vilified its heroes and victimized its villains, but this was an unusual kind of offence. I wasn’t offended because Tarantino let loose and resorted to violence, as he’s done that many times. Rather, I was offended because the movie centres its biggest rug pull around subverting one of Hollywood’s greatest tragedies. Given the ripple-effect of Sharon Tate’s actual murder, one that’d be felt for years, it felt like a middle finger to her life.

I know that this isn’t an original sentiment; after all, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood has garnered lots of criticism over its ending, as well as how it characterized the late-Bruce Lee. But having had time to reflect on how utterly-bizarre this scene is, I still wonder if it was in good taste…even if Tate’s sister gave it her blessing. I have several questions about how plausible it is, including how a man on an acid trip could beat three would-be murders to death, but that’s irrelevant. As is how violent their deaths are, and let’s not pretend they aren’t. No, my issue goes further than that.

What I want to know is why Sharon Tate wasn’t the heroine of this particular moment. For one, it’s implied early-on that she learned martial arts from Lee, as shown through a brief flashback. And two, considering this was meant as a “reclaiming a narrative” moment, wouldn’t it make sense for her to have been present? Perhaps, even in her pregnant state, get a few licks in, maybe finish one of them off herself? I’m not sure if there was a way to make this functional, but not having her there feels like a wasted opportunity.

The deaths of these assassins also feel like overkill. One of them has her head repeatedly slammed against sharp objects until she dies, while another is mauled by Booth’s dog before being finished off with Dalton’s flamethrower. The third…I don’t even remember how he dies, as I was so taken aback by the scene. I, honestly, felt less like Booth and more like Dalton’s wife, getting a single punch in before cowering in fear. The entire ordeal was crazy, and the movie didn’t want me to forget that.

It also seems strange that the film used Sharon Tate as a reframing for an alternate history. Call me a purist, but I’m more interested in a Tarantino film delving into that than what we got. I guess alternative history revenge flicks are his MO now, since three of his last four movies have been that, but I honestly think the movie should’ve committed to its premise, even showing how Sharon Tate died. It wouldn’t have been “crowd-pleasing”, but it’d have been a lot more honest.

It’d also be interesting to see Tarantino delve into new territory, at least for him. I’d be game for a Tarantino-directed police procedural/courtroom drama centred around a famous celebrity death. Especially one as restrained as Once Upon a Time In Hollywood is for the majority of its runtime. I’d be curious to see him handle witness examination, or even a judge and jury sentencing. It may not be within his wheelhouse, but I’ve seen stranger from other directors. And it’s not like it wouldn’t be well-received.

Perhaps I’m overthinking this. Perhaps it’s too much speculation for Quentin Tarantino. And maybe my suggestions would ruin the film, who knows? But I wonder if this was the correct approach. Then again, considering that a Charles Manson biopic’s in the works…

The Gun Dilemma

I’m a gamer. I’ve been one since I was 3 years old. I wear glasses because of my over-exposure to TV screens while playing them. I also read up on gaming regularly. And while I’m not as avid a player as I used to be, even now I’ll occasionally go for several hours with whichever game catches my fancy.

Simultaneously, I suffer from mental illness. I have anxiety, which can occasionally be crippling. I also have addictive behaviour, brought on from childhood trauma I’ve been coping with for 22 years. Both of those make for a bad combo, which isn’t helped by my past history with depression and occasionally suicidal thoughts. Because of my mental illness, I often find comfort in video games.

This past week saw back-to-back mass shootings in The US, in El Paso and Dayton, as well as fourteen shootings in the city of Toronto. For the most part, this is nothing new: mass shootings have happened often in The US, and there’ve been a few in Canada. But them happening so frequently means that this is a problem that needs addressing yesterday. And while there are solutions-background checks, banning AR-15s, making it harder to buy guns-that this keeps getting ignored or redirected is an issue on its own. And nowhere is this more-apparent than in two red herrings, i.e. video games and mental illness.

I’m not an expert on this, so what I say henceforth should be taken with a grain of salt. But video games, a scapegoat with no definitive correlation, and mental illness, which The American Psychology Association has written extensively about, being used to hand-wave the bigger cause at play hurts. It hurts because it ignores the issue, and it hurts because it stigmatizes the wrong targets. But it also hurts because it makes people like me, gamers with mental illness, targets of unwarranted hate.

Let’s get two points clear: one, there’s no definitive link between video games and gun violence. In a piece from Vox, a chart was drawn contrasting video game sales in developed countries and their gun violence rates. Japan, which was at the top, ranked low on the gun violence chart. Most of the highest-sellers ranked really low, actually, with The US being the exception. Even Canada, which has seen its share of gun violence, ranked pretty low. Clearly, video games aren’t the issue.

And two, mental illness isn’t the cause of gun violence. It’s true that some mass shooters were mentally ill, but pinning the blame on that minimizes the struggles people with anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression and the likes live with regularly. Speaking as someone who’s mentally ill, I assure you that I’d be more likely to hurt myself before anyone else. Why? Because I have a guilty conscience that makes me regret simply bumping into someone accidentally. I also have been off medication before, and the end results were more dangerous to me than anyone else.

By blaming video games and mental illness, we’ve detracted from real factors that’ve caused these shootings. Factors like white supremacy, which has been classified as a hateful ideology by The FBI. Factors like Donald Trump’s rhetoric, which is amplified by his base. And factors like The NRA, a lobby that pays off politicians and researchers. All of these, combined with loose gun laws in many states, are to blame more.

It doesn’t help to blame mental illness and gaming because it detracts from the conversations that should be had. Conversations like how video games can send out negative messages that desensitize people to real issues. Conversations like how mental health is a serious concern that needs addressing. And conversations like how men are likelier to die from suicide than women. These are ignored when video games and mental health are correlated with gun violence.

Even outside that, pinning the blame on video games and mental illness makes it impossible for gamers with mental health issues to feel valued. I like video games. I also have mental health issues. But am I any more of a threat than, say, a KKK member? Or that guy who ran over Heather Heyer in Charlottesville? Or that guy in Toronto who ran over people with his van? Or every mass shooter of the last 15 years?

I’m not saying this because I have a stake in the matter. I’m saying it because it’s dishonest to lump everything together. Many functioning members of society are either gamers, mentally ill, or both. We simply don’t know because it’s not obvious. And by making this about them, we detract from what they can offer the world.

Conversely, I don’t think Ctrl+Alt+Del’s solution from many years ago is really the answer. Further threats are what we should be avoiding, not perpetuating. And the mentally ill? We should help them, not stigmatize them. We should show them that it’s okay to ask for help, instead of slamming the door in their faces.

Finally, we need to address gun violence. We need to reframe what a gun is, demonstrating that it’s a responsibility and not a right. We need mandatory background checks that pick up red flags, and have unnecessary types of guns be harder to acquire. But, most-importantly, we need to make sure that young, white males, whom most of these shooters were, don’t feel an urge to lash out at society. We, essentially, need to take the “supremacy” out of “white supremacy”. Only then will we be able to remedy this problem.