![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyBut it turns out I do. Not about the shooting - I know little enough about that, and want to keep it that way, actually - but about the commentary to the shooting. And boy, has there been a lot of it!
First, let me just say the obvious: There is no particular evidence that the shooter, James Holmes, is autistic. It's certainly possible, but it's definitely not any more likely than any OTHER member of the random public is in the spectrum, and it may well be less likely. It's really not true that this sort of thing happens "more often than not" with autistics. Were that the case, there'd be a lot more shooting deaths in this country, and we've got more than enough as it is.
I'm not going to dignify this with any more response than that.
(Well, maybe a little more. Autism isn't a mental illness, however, even if it were, mentally ill people are ALSO far more likely to be victims than villains. That is all.)
The second thing I have to say is about victim blaming. You would expect a lot of commentary on this subject - it's tragic, it's scary, and at the risk of being callous I'll point out what the Onion said on the subject: we've got scripted reactions we have to get out of our systems.
So I would've expected some commentary on gun control, on the role of violence in our culture, things like that.
I didn't expect comments on how people should not have brought their kids to see the movie, and if they had those kids would still be alive.
(And I read over at FreeRange Kids. I should know better, I really should.)
The first I read about it was an opinion piece on how, even though there may be a valid point as to whether or not young children should a. go to midnight premieres or b. watch very violent movies like this one, now is not the time to air these complaints.
I've got an opinion on the question of "babies and toddlers at midnight premieres of violent movies" as well, but for sure I'm not going to air it! Because not only is it the wrong time, but all the people on that side right now are stupid. Absolutely the most illogical group of comments I've ever waded through.
After now reading several hundreds of comments to the original piece and similar, I've sorted them into categories. Nobody ever says anything new, have you noticed?
1. Sure, this isn't the time or place, but all the same...! Those parents should've waited a month, it's all about instant gratification for them!
If it's not the time, wait a month. There'll be more movies with kids there that you don't think should be there. You don't thrive on instant gratification, you can wait. (Plus, seriously, there's a difference between a midnight premiere and seeing the movie any old time.)
2. There is never any reason for a kid to be up that late. *reason is given* Okay, that reason is okay, but not for a MOVIE. There's some difference which I'll never state because it should be OBVIOUS.
If it should be obvious, but you can't state it, that means your argument is not well thought out. And if your reason boils down to "movies don't count as special events", I ask that you show me the badge you got when you were made arbiter of special events.
3. Movies are just too loud for babies! Also, babies scream.
These comments don't have to go together, but they usually do. The conflation makes me laugh.
There IS a valid point here (nobody likes a screaming child during the quiet scenes), but they're assuming that any child in a theater will be noisy and no parent will remove their child.
As far as "movies are too loud", well, I concur. But not just for babies. Contact your local theater, ask them to lower the volume, do that every time you see a film.
4. Violent movies are bad for kids! They're possibly not bad for grown-ups!
Variation: PG-13 means it's inappropriate for ANY child under the age of 13!
Again, this is possible a valid point, and unlike the "movies are noisy" argument this one might be valid even in the wake of recent events. Still a bit tacky, but possibly valid.
I'd be more convinced if they'd show their research instead of just repeating themselves, though... and if they could make a convincing argument about why it's okay for adults.
5. They should've known this is bad news! Only costumed freaks go to midnight premieres!!! What did they expect???
Thank you. I'm sure we've all been refreshed and enlightened by your unique point of view.
6. Nobody is saying that the parents are to blame, but you have to admit, if they hadn't made a bad choice... *reply points out that this is victim blaming* No, it's not blaming the victim, I'm just saying the parents would have living children if they'd made a better choice! *points out that this is still victim blaming* No, it's definitely the shooter's fault, but you must admit, bad parenting got those kids killed!
This is the point at which I start wondering if something's in the water.
7. Fine, what about that dude that ditched his two kids to flee?
You got me. He's an asshole.
Look, I'm not saying it's always wrong to judge people. I'm just saying that in certain situations, you have to keep your judgments to yourself... especially when they're a. tacky and/or b. illogical. This guy could've just as easily shot up the matinee, and then whom would they blame? ("Oh, but he didn't shoot up the matinee, can't you see???" Yes, that's why I used the subjunctive, you twit.)
Oh, and on that note? If I hear one more person (read one more person) blithely recite "guns don't kill people" at me, I might just scream. Guns make killing people easier. I understand there may be some valid reasons for them, but that doesn't mean that no restriction is reasonable. If I ever invent a time machine, I'm going to make a quick stopover to ask the founding fathers what, exactly, they intended with the second amendment.
First, let me just say the obvious: There is no particular evidence that the shooter, James Holmes, is autistic. It's certainly possible, but it's definitely not any more likely than any OTHER member of the random public is in the spectrum, and it may well be less likely. It's really not true that this sort of thing happens "more often than not" with autistics. Were that the case, there'd be a lot more shooting deaths in this country, and we've got more than enough as it is.
I'm not going to dignify this with any more response than that.
(Well, maybe a little more. Autism isn't a mental illness, however, even if it were, mentally ill people are ALSO far more likely to be victims than villains. That is all.)
The second thing I have to say is about victim blaming. You would expect a lot of commentary on this subject - it's tragic, it's scary, and at the risk of being callous I'll point out what the Onion said on the subject: we've got scripted reactions we have to get out of our systems.
So I would've expected some commentary on gun control, on the role of violence in our culture, things like that.
I didn't expect comments on how people should not have brought their kids to see the movie, and if they had those kids would still be alive.
(And I read over at FreeRange Kids. I should know better, I really should.)
The first I read about it was an opinion piece on how, even though there may be a valid point as to whether or not young children should a. go to midnight premieres or b. watch very violent movies like this one, now is not the time to air these complaints.
I've got an opinion on the question of "babies and toddlers at midnight premieres of violent movies" as well, but for sure I'm not going to air it! Because not only is it the wrong time, but all the people on that side right now are stupid. Absolutely the most illogical group of comments I've ever waded through.
After now reading several hundreds of comments to the original piece and similar, I've sorted them into categories. Nobody ever says anything new, have you noticed?
1. Sure, this isn't the time or place, but all the same...! Those parents should've waited a month, it's all about instant gratification for them!
If it's not the time, wait a month. There'll be more movies with kids there that you don't think should be there. You don't thrive on instant gratification, you can wait. (Plus, seriously, there's a difference between a midnight premiere and seeing the movie any old time.)
2. There is never any reason for a kid to be up that late. *reason is given* Okay, that reason is okay, but not for a MOVIE. There's some difference which I'll never state because it should be OBVIOUS.
If it should be obvious, but you can't state it, that means your argument is not well thought out. And if your reason boils down to "movies don't count as special events", I ask that you show me the badge you got when you were made arbiter of special events.
3. Movies are just too loud for babies! Also, babies scream.
These comments don't have to go together, but they usually do. The conflation makes me laugh.
There IS a valid point here (nobody likes a screaming child during the quiet scenes), but they're assuming that any child in a theater will be noisy and no parent will remove their child.
As far as "movies are too loud", well, I concur. But not just for babies. Contact your local theater, ask them to lower the volume, do that every time you see a film.
4. Violent movies are bad for kids! They're possibly not bad for grown-ups!
Variation: PG-13 means it's inappropriate for ANY child under the age of 13!
Again, this is possible a valid point, and unlike the "movies are noisy" argument this one might be valid even in the wake of recent events. Still a bit tacky, but possibly valid.
I'd be more convinced if they'd show their research instead of just repeating themselves, though... and if they could make a convincing argument about why it's okay for adults.
5. They should've known this is bad news! Only costumed freaks go to midnight premieres!!! What did they expect???
Thank you. I'm sure we've all been refreshed and enlightened by your unique point of view.
6. Nobody is saying that the parents are to blame, but you have to admit, if they hadn't made a bad choice... *reply points out that this is victim blaming* No, it's not blaming the victim, I'm just saying the parents would have living children if they'd made a better choice! *points out that this is still victim blaming* No, it's definitely the shooter's fault, but you must admit, bad parenting got those kids killed!
This is the point at which I start wondering if something's in the water.
7. Fine, what about that dude that ditched his two kids to flee?
You got me. He's an asshole.
Look, I'm not saying it's always wrong to judge people. I'm just saying that in certain situations, you have to keep your judgments to yourself... especially when they're a. tacky and/or b. illogical. This guy could've just as easily shot up the matinee, and then whom would they blame? ("Oh, but he didn't shoot up the matinee, can't you see???" Yes, that's why I used the subjunctive, you twit.)
Oh, and on that note? If I hear one more person (read one more person) blithely recite "guns don't kill people" at me, I might just scream. Guns make killing people easier. I understand there may be some valid reasons for them, but that doesn't mean that no restriction is reasonable. If I ever invent a time machine, I'm going to make a quick stopover to ask the founding fathers what, exactly, they intended with the second amendment.
