No, Fuck YOU
Apr. 11th, 2007 01:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI went to add a movie to my Netflix queue just now, and I happened to be scrolling up through the list to see what all I've got on there, and something caught my eye. On the "Queue" page, they list movies you've got lined up by name followed by a star ranking (1 through 5, worst to best liked). I happened to notice that one item on the list had one star as it's ranking.
Now, I've rented clunkers from this service (Underworld: Evolution being the reigning champ, and Bloodrayne being a close, slutty best-friend second). One of the movies on my queue has a two-star rating, even, but most are about three-stars or better (even Earth 2, which I remember liking but never thought was really all that good; and, while I'm on the subject--the fuck is Roar doing on my queue? Since when do I allow Heath Ledger on my queue?). So I stopped to read the title and then I had to see what horrid reviews were dragging down the star rating.
The movie is Deliver Us From Evil, a documentary about a Catholic Priest who molested young children for decades and got away with it because the Church never fired him--they just shuffled him around. Right away, I knew the type who would be posting (trolling) to sink the rating on this one, even when every critic in the country thought it was both a brave and fantastic film (of course, they are all members of the liberal media cabal, so who trusts them?).
I was a bit confused at first, since it seemed like only two reviews gave the movie one star (turns out that representative graphic of the star rating said "the average of raters like you" was one star--and what the fuck does that mean!? I'm no wingnut!). I read through them. The first was pretty standard, decrying the film as anti-Catholic and even calling into question whether or not the story presented therein was true. As it contains extensive interviews with the priest who molested young people admitting to what he did, I'm pretty sure this person never saw the film.
But it's the other review, the one made by someone who definitely never saw the film that made me actually write to Netflix to report them.
To Whom It May Concern:
I recently checked member reviews of the film "Deliver Us From Evil" (2006) and I found one of the reviews to be both irrelevant and disrespectful. The point of the reviews is to remark on the film in question and provide some insight on its strengths and weaknesses that might not otherwise come through in a professional or abbreviated review found on your website.
The member review I am writing to report is by "West Coast Irish." He/She writes:
"I have not yet seen this film, but I think I can pretty much get a sense of its anti-Catholicism by reading the description and other reviews. Anybody who thinks that sexual abuse is a problem solely for the Catholic Church is simply deceiving themselves. The problem exist sin the same proportion amongst protestant churches, and society as a whole. Our whole society is permeated with a perverted sexual ethic that results in these dreadful crimes occuring. The real problem in the Catholic Church was not pedophilia, but homosexual priests who abused not children but adolescents. If you look at the data of the abuse cases the vast majority are accusations against priests who abused adolescents and not children, which makes them predatory homosexuals and not pedophiles. The reason why these men were allowed to become and remain priests is a complex issue, but mostly it can be attributed to the inflatration of the liberal "sexual revolution" ideology that sadly influenced some members of the Church, and encouraged and allowed men who would not live in conformity with the Church's teaching on sexuality to become priests. The problem is being remedied, and today more and more young men who are eager to live out the Church's teachings are becoming good and holy priests."
The member review makes disparaging remarks about homosexuals and makes the inflammatory claims that they are equivalent to perverts and that the whole of homosexuality is to be blamed for any cases of sexual abuse involving minors. Additionally, "West Coast Irish" blames "liberals"for everything wrong with both homosexuality and pedophilia, which is offensive as it furthers the bogus smear that homosexuals are all perverted and freakish and considers anyone who disagrees (i.e. "liberals") to be the source of the problems with pedophilia. It's disgusting.
But if these are not grounds to remove this hateful review, the fact that the reviewer has not even seen this movie should. First and foremost, these reviews are to be about the movie in question. Whether or not this polemic about the causes and the sources of blame for the subject matter involved with the movie are worthy of being included in a review of the film is irrelevant. This member has not seen the film, thus this review is nothing more than an excuse to argue personal politics. Simply, this is not a review, therefore it should not be attached to this film or your website.
According to Netflix's Review Guidelines, it is suggested that a member review include supporting details to explain why a member reviewed a film the way he/she did; as they never bothered to watch the movie, none are offered to make it of use to the other subscribers. Netflix also clearly states that "Harsh, profane or discriminatory language" is not to be contained within a member review, and I feel this one does. I would like you to please consider removing it and letting the member "West Coast Irish" know how he/she has violated your guidelines to avoid future spurious, mean-spirited, useless reviews such as this one.
Thank you,
I have a good argument--the guy/girl never saw the fucking movie, so there's no way this works as a legit film review. But the part that makes me want to vomit and made me mad enough to send this in to Netflix? This little beauty:
"If you look at the data of the abuse cases the vast majority are accusations against priests who abused adolescents and not children, which makes them predatory homosexuals and not pedophiles."
The blinding stupidity of such a statement almost outrages me more than the bigotry. Because FUCK YOU, you utter and complete BASTARD. So long as the victims of abuse who were preyed upon by people they were meant to be able to trust with their very souls were old enough, this isn't the fault of the people you want to defend but, instead, the fault of the people you defame (and obviously disdain)? As if there's some invisible dividing line of maturity that separates the victims and that there's some tacit agreement between the Catholic Church and The Gay Agenda whereby everyone over that line is fair game for the buggery blitzkrieg (God, I love blogs' inventiveness; I forget who to credit for that, but it ain't mine and it is awesome) but everyone twelve and under is still prime choir-boy rapists' property?
As if...as if sexual predation on minors were so easy to categorize. It's not even easy to blame THE GAY for any same-sex cases of pedophiles abusing kids ('cause, wake up call: most homosexual acts of predation on minors aren't perpetrated by homosexuals), let alone giving them credit for all the ones that involve the kids who can still touch bottom at the deep end of the pool. The obvious ignorance in that post, the firm belief that predatory homosexuals are out there, cruising for cornholes of good honest folks' kids like this "West Coast Irish" just...gah. I get that he wouldn't able to actually examine the evidence regarding same-sex cases of sexual abuse because he somehow thinks that it's not a priest's fault and, therefore, not the Church's fault if this one guy is THE GAY! It's not the Church protecting him from prosecution or his position cowing his victims to keep them from speaking out--it's the SODOMY SQUADRON (also not mine, damnit)!
I do, however, appreciate the fact he/she doesn't seem to get that by saying it's not the Church's fault this guy abused teenagers, and that abuse of teenagers is the purvey of The Homosexuals, he/she implies that pedophilia is the Church's business. The stupidity of someone marginalizing abuse--so long as it's over the Age Line (thanks, Dumbledore!)--made me angry enough to post. The fact that this person pretty much admits that even predatory homosexuals are not pedophiles, intimating that that is the option left to members of the Church, is an irony that does not escape me throughout his "STOP LIBELING MY DOMINANT, IGNORANT, HYPOCRITICAL RELIGION" post.
Now, I've rented clunkers from this service (Underworld: Evolution being the reigning champ, and Bloodrayne being a close, slutty best-friend second). One of the movies on my queue has a two-star rating, even, but most are about three-stars or better (even Earth 2, which I remember liking but never thought was really all that good; and, while I'm on the subject--the fuck is Roar doing on my queue? Since when do I allow Heath Ledger on my queue?). So I stopped to read the title and then I had to see what horrid reviews were dragging down the star rating.
The movie is Deliver Us From Evil, a documentary about a Catholic Priest who molested young children for decades and got away with it because the Church never fired him--they just shuffled him around. Right away, I knew the type who would be posting (trolling) to sink the rating on this one, even when every critic in the country thought it was both a brave and fantastic film (of course, they are all members of the liberal media cabal, so who trusts them?).
I was a bit confused at first, since it seemed like only two reviews gave the movie one star (turns out that representative graphic of the star rating said "the average of raters like you" was one star--and what the fuck does that mean!? I'm no wingnut!). I read through them. The first was pretty standard, decrying the film as anti-Catholic and even calling into question whether or not the story presented therein was true. As it contains extensive interviews with the priest who molested young people admitting to what he did, I'm pretty sure this person never saw the film.
But it's the other review, the one made by someone who definitely never saw the film that made me actually write to Netflix to report them.
To Whom It May Concern:
I recently checked member reviews of the film "Deliver Us From Evil" (2006) and I found one of the reviews to be both irrelevant and disrespectful. The point of the reviews is to remark on the film in question and provide some insight on its strengths and weaknesses that might not otherwise come through in a professional or abbreviated review found on your website.
The member review I am writing to report is by "West Coast Irish." He/She writes:
"I have not yet seen this film, but I think I can pretty much get a sense of its anti-Catholicism by reading the description and other reviews. Anybody who thinks that sexual abuse is a problem solely for the Catholic Church is simply deceiving themselves. The problem exist sin the same proportion amongst protestant churches, and society as a whole. Our whole society is permeated with a perverted sexual ethic that results in these dreadful crimes occuring. The real problem in the Catholic Church was not pedophilia, but homosexual priests who abused not children but adolescents. If you look at the data of the abuse cases the vast majority are accusations against priests who abused adolescents and not children, which makes them predatory homosexuals and not pedophiles. The reason why these men were allowed to become and remain priests is a complex issue, but mostly it can be attributed to the inflatration of the liberal "sexual revolution" ideology that sadly influenced some members of the Church, and encouraged and allowed men who would not live in conformity with the Church's teaching on sexuality to become priests. The problem is being remedied, and today more and more young men who are eager to live out the Church's teachings are becoming good and holy priests."
The member review makes disparaging remarks about homosexuals and makes the inflammatory claims that they are equivalent to perverts and that the whole of homosexuality is to be blamed for any cases of sexual abuse involving minors. Additionally, "West Coast Irish" blames "liberals"for everything wrong with both homosexuality and pedophilia, which is offensive as it furthers the bogus smear that homosexuals are all perverted and freakish and considers anyone who disagrees (i.e. "liberals") to be the source of the problems with pedophilia. It's disgusting.
But if these are not grounds to remove this hateful review, the fact that the reviewer has not even seen this movie should. First and foremost, these reviews are to be about the movie in question. Whether or not this polemic about the causes and the sources of blame for the subject matter involved with the movie are worthy of being included in a review of the film is irrelevant. This member has not seen the film, thus this review is nothing more than an excuse to argue personal politics. Simply, this is not a review, therefore it should not be attached to this film or your website.
According to Netflix's Review Guidelines, it is suggested that a member review include supporting details to explain why a member reviewed a film the way he/she did; as they never bothered to watch the movie, none are offered to make it of use to the other subscribers. Netflix also clearly states that "Harsh, profane or discriminatory language" is not to be contained within a member review, and I feel this one does. I would like you to please consider removing it and letting the member "West Coast Irish" know how he/she has violated your guidelines to avoid future spurious, mean-spirited, useless reviews such as this one.
Thank you,
I have a good argument--the guy/girl never saw the fucking movie, so there's no way this works as a legit film review. But the part that makes me want to vomit and made me mad enough to send this in to Netflix? This little beauty:
"If you look at the data of the abuse cases the vast majority are accusations against priests who abused adolescents and not children, which makes them predatory homosexuals and not pedophiles."
The blinding stupidity of such a statement almost outrages me more than the bigotry. Because FUCK YOU, you utter and complete BASTARD. So long as the victims of abuse who were preyed upon by people they were meant to be able to trust with their very souls were old enough, this isn't the fault of the people you want to defend but, instead, the fault of the people you defame (and obviously disdain)? As if there's some invisible dividing line of maturity that separates the victims and that there's some tacit agreement between the Catholic Church and The Gay Agenda whereby everyone over that line is fair game for the buggery blitzkrieg (God, I love blogs' inventiveness; I forget who to credit for that, but it ain't mine and it is awesome) but everyone twelve and under is still prime choir-boy rapists' property?
As if...as if sexual predation on minors were so easy to categorize. It's not even easy to blame THE GAY for any same-sex cases of pedophiles abusing kids ('cause, wake up call: most homosexual acts of predation on minors aren't perpetrated by homosexuals), let alone giving them credit for all the ones that involve the kids who can still touch bottom at the deep end of the pool. The obvious ignorance in that post, the firm belief that predatory homosexuals are out there, cruising for cornholes of good honest folks' kids like this "West Coast Irish" just...gah. I get that he wouldn't able to actually examine the evidence regarding same-sex cases of sexual abuse because he somehow thinks that it's not a priest's fault and, therefore, not the Church's fault if this one guy is THE GAY! It's not the Church protecting him from prosecution or his position cowing his victims to keep them from speaking out--it's the SODOMY SQUADRON (also not mine, damnit)!
I do, however, appreciate the fact he/she doesn't seem to get that by saying it's not the Church's fault this guy abused teenagers, and that abuse of teenagers is the purvey of The Homosexuals, he/she implies that pedophilia is the Church's business. The stupidity of someone marginalizing abuse--so long as it's over the Age Line (thanks, Dumbledore!)--made me angry enough to post. The fact that this person pretty much admits that even predatory homosexuals are not pedophiles, intimating that that is the option left to members of the Church, is an irony that does not escape me throughout his "STOP LIBELING MY DOMINANT, IGNORANT, HYPOCRITICAL RELIGION" post.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 07:52 pm (UTC)TRUELY deviant sexual behavior is horrible, the problem is that anything that is not "vanilla" people consider deviant and thats just not the case. Many people have diffrent desires that may be unusual or differ from the norm, however that does not make it deviant or wrong. And I applaude you most for bring this part up alone. People don't really get what they are talking about when they say "deviant". Just because its not your cup of tea does not make it wrong, and trying to pidgeon hole sexual prefrences with true deviant acts is digusting and narrowminded.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 08:05 pm (UTC)There are a few cardinal rules of what makes certain sexual proclivities morally wrong (not just "deviant"), the biggest being that consent must be had for all sex acts between the partners. Obviously, anyone not mature enough to give or understand consent would be, should be, and is not legal to have sex with (hence the pedophilia laws we have in place). Regardless of how old, how mature, however, it is almost always abuse when a person in a position of power entices an underling or someone who has put their faith and trust in that person then turns around and demands or extorts or bribes or cajoles sex. When the balance of power is not equal, there is potential for abuse.
The fact that such complexities come second to crying out against homosexuals and an agenda of defending a Church that has done some (not even I say it's totally corrupt) indefensible things makes me sick. Fucking soundbite culture...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 08:20 pm (UTC)I guess i fail to understand why when it comes to "deviant" sexual behavior (NOT including true deviant acts such as children or animals) people care. If its consentual but not your cuppa tea, why the hell people get their panties in a bunch over it. Its not like they are doing these things to you. Go off and have a nice day in your narrow little world. Really simple rule #1....first do no harm. As long as your not harming ANYBODY in ANYWAY (that is not consentual that is, and this includes manipulation and taking advantage of) I fail to see what the uproar that the conservaties whine about.
And intresting fact. I went to Catholic school for grade school and public school for highschool. My highschool is where the teacher was recentlly removed for sexually asulting students, the Catholic school has not. Really, sexual predators exist everywhere, however those associated with the church gets more media play. If it was a catholic priest who molested 8 girls it would be national news. Since it was a public school teacher it barely made local. And THAT is a really BIG fucking problem. I think they should mandatory psych evaluations before you can get your teaching liscense but thats just me....I am rambling...sorry.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 09:16 pm (UTC)Where the institutions that find themselves infected with predators get into trouble is in how they screen for such people and how they treat anyone who is then, later, discovered to be a predator. Any institution like the Catholic Church (or the Protestant ones, or any religion, really) that grants someone with authority a reasonable excuse to be alone with, whilst exercising power over or holding in thrall a subordinate person in need is presented with the challenge of assuring the penitent, weaker party that the person they appeal to will not abuse his/her position. This happens everywhere, and the abuse is not always sexual. The Church has gotten into trouble because they have been so desperate to keep priests of late that they can't turn away even bad ones (that they are also attempting to smother any scandal is open to debate--personally, I think they are reactionary and that that is exactly what they are trying to do--save their own asses for not choosing better in the first place), so they've protected them. Instea d of doing what is right, as was done with the public school teacher you mentioned and expelling them.
After you get through the run-around of dealing with all of that, worrying about what consenting adults are doing with each other on their own time seems really, really petty and stupid, hence my explosion at this asshole. Get your own house in order, is the saying. "People in glass houses..." goes another.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 09:30 pm (UTC)My question is this, how many times has there been a teacher lets say in the public school system that has been shuffeled around due to complaints? But things like that do no get as much media attention and thats wrong. In this day and age its not "fashionable" to be pious. Religeons and faiths are attacked more and more often, when many times they are just just as guilty and corrupt as coporate america and other big business for covering up information and unethical behavior. Are you going to see more in the news about somebody who got caught embezzling from a starbucks store or a priest stealing donations? In both cases the people who hand the money over do it in good faith that they assume they money is going to a specific place for a specific reason.
There are sexual predators everywhere. There are also junkies, liars, thieves, cheats, and assholes everywhere as well. To attack one specific place is simply showing off ignorance if you assume that it can't be going on in your own house (....or senate....). Many of the people who are the loudest regarding these situations are those who turn a blind eye to this going on where they don't want to notice. No matter how many advances we make as a culture or civilization, there is no way to prevent many things from happening. Sadly this is one of them. People always want more power, and thats what this is about. And even if there was a way to screen for this before entering specific occupations, how fast before people screamed invasion of privacy? It sucks.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 09:45 pm (UTC)No, it's not fair to pick on the sex scandals with the Church when Enron and WorldCom and Iraq and Bush and 9/11 are things just as bad. The fact is we can summon action against moral outrages better than we can against executive or military ones--hence why the Repugnicans have gotten poor people to vote for them even though they are the party of hating on poor people.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 09:55 pm (UTC)To quote Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy its an SEP. When something is so mind bogglingly awful (ie bush) most people choose to ignore it and write it off as an SEP (somebody elses problem). We like news stories where we can feel moralistically superior to people we feel we can relate to. Why do you think tabloids do so well. People would rather hear that Bush channels the spirts of witches persecuted in Salem then to realize all that he is really doing wrong. I dont get it.