Jay Peterson
  • Home
  • Acting
    • Headshots
    • Resume
    • Press
    • History
    • Reels
  • The Gruntverse
    • Three briefings before a crisis
    • The Preliminary Report of Marshal Bennett
    • So your kid turned out to be a mage
  • Jay at Play
    • Nonfiction
    • Other videos >
      • Just Blanks
      • Tommy That
      • Machine Gun Shakespeare
      • Igor
  • Blog

Violence: A force of nature

10/23/2015

0 Comments

 
Two days ago I wrote a horror story.

While it hasn't exactly gone viral, it has become widespread, going places I didn't know existed. A few people didn't get it. Some thought I was actually advocating the scenario I described (did you motherfuckers not understand the fucking word "horror?"). Others thought I was crying about them damn Democrats in next year's election. I was only called an ammosexual once.

But one person (who I had a rather nice side discussion with before he got nitpicking and douchey about it) wanted to hear my thoughts on how we ~solve~ the problem of gun violence.

Now, my knee-jerk response to this is usually to point out that active shooter incidents, while increasing, are still so statistically insignificant that they're on roughly the same level as powerball jackpot wins, our violent crime rate has been cut in half over the last 20 years as our numbers of those carrying concealed has more than doubled; and of our remaining gun-related homicides, the bulk are being carried out by a professional criminal class that are much more interested in killing each other than anyone else.

...Then I ask if we weren't fixing the problem well enough or fast enough?

But since I have a request, challenge accepted.

Now, in identifying solutions, one must both identify the problem and realize one's limitations.

In this case, the problem is gun violence (though it's already decreasing from what we are doing).

Our limitations are what we are unwilling to do in our society. Looking at the last 30 years, we are expanding firearm access to the lawful rather than decreasing it. The second amendment is going nowhere.

Nor will we wipe out poverty or culture clash, with all of the capacity for violence those bring. We have already decided as a society that the benefits outweigh such liabilities.

Which still leaves us with the problem of gun violence. I, on the other hand, am addressing violence in general, rather than focusing on a weapon or even-tighter applications of said weapon.

Stage one is to learn, know, and accept violence as a force of nature. It has been with us since the dawn of time. It has useful and disastrous purposes. And it is how we channel, use, and treat that force that determines our relationship with it.

Fortunately, we have an example in how we dealt with another force.

Fire.

Fire is both useful and disastrous. In our earliest days, it warmed our bodies and cooked our food. Psychologically, it was our first weapon against the night we feared.

Later we harnessed fire's power. Our civilization grew in the light of cookfires, then forges, then furnaces.

But even as it built, fire consumed. It brought deaths from smoke in the air to flames in the flesh to collapsing buildings around us. We died in the flames from malice, and from accident, and from negligence.

Across the centuries, we burned. London, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, San Francisco, the list goes on.
And so humanity fought back. We knew early on that fire could not be eliminated. But it could be controlled, diverted, contained, and fought.

We fought not with extinguishers alone. We fought with departments and extinguishers and alarms and building codes. We fought with some things that were worse and later abandoned (remember asbestos?). We enlisted a godsdamned cartoon bear in a drill instructor's hat and used him to teach our children. We had drills. We have mnemonics (stop, drop and roll, anyone?). We fought that force on multiple fronts.

And so the great fires that destroyed cities no longer happen.

And yet...

3,275 people were killed by fire last year (NFPA).

We will not eliminate a force of nature. We can contain. We can control. We can direct. We can prevent. But we cannot eliminate. And to think so is folly.

Now, violence.

Violence has been with us since the beginning. It has ensured our survival. It has defeated those who would subjugate or annihilate.

And yet, it has run rampant across the globe. It has wiped out families. Cities. Nations. Empires. It has let the strong prey upon the weak.

And so we controlled it. Channeled it. Contained it.

We told our children stories of what violence was for. How villains used it. How heroes did. We told of when it was needed and when it wasn't. We taught how the big bad wolf didn't stop trying to eat little red because he had an intervention, he stopped trying to eat her because some hairy blue-collar fuck that told off-color jokes and farted a lot put an axe through it's hairy skull.

(And yeah, we pointed out there's times when kindness, cleverness, submission, and trust saved the day instead. That's why there's more than one fairy tale. I never said this shit was easy or convenient.)

And then, in living memory, we fucked up.

We told ourselves that we had controlled violence so well, we could eliminate it. We didn't need it anymore.

We were as foolish as someone who thought they could destroy fire by eating raw food.

And to this day we are suffering for it.

We will not eliminate gun violence. Ever.

But we can control it. Channel it. Mitigate the damage.

And we can do so in the multi-stage ways we attacked fire. "Good guys with guns" won't do it alone. But good guys with guns mixed with drills and alarms and police training and children's education. The NRA uses a cartoon eagle to tell kids about gun safety. Why is there not a poster of that feathered fuck in classrooms across America?

We need to teach that the fire warms as well as consumes again.

We need to show that violence can solve some problems even as it can cause more.

And we need to acknowledge that there always will be deaths at the hands of others.

I never said a solution was cheap. Or easy. Or convenient.

Only that it's possible.
~J.
Picture
0 Comments

A Horror Story

10/21/2015

0 Comments

 
I normally don't go this dark with my work.

But since it is October, and as such the time of horror stories, I may as well get it out of my system. This one in particular dedicated to all those crying, "nobody's coming for your guns!"

Oh, the lies you tell, whether you believe so or not. But your ascertation is rather wrong, my friend. I'm not scared of someone coming to take my guns, be it Obama or Hillary or Bernie or anyone else.

What I fear is something far worse.

Let us start with numbers, shall we? There are, at present, some 320 million people in the United States of America, about three-quarters of which are adults. There is roughly 300 million privately owned firearms.

Figuring out how many gun owners are there is obscure. The most recent study out there claims at least one in three adults. That's certainly an underestimate (let's just say there's a segment of gun owners who are disinclined to be truthful to people with clipboards asking personal questions and leave it at that), but it's somewhere to put our feet.

That leaves 80 million gun owners across America.

Say we were to go about confiscating. Of course we would go about with voluntary turn-in programs and suchlike, grace periods and whatnot.

Of course, we have an example of that today, in fact.

In the wake of Sandy Hook, New York and Connecticut both passed laws requiring, among other things, registration of so-called "Assault weapons." Despite rampant opposition in both states (in NY, all but two counties north of Westchester filed resolutions opposing it), both acts were passed, and grace periods ensued. Violation is a class A misdemeanor in NY, a felony in Connecticut.

Noncompliance was rampant. Less than 45K weapons were registered in NY. It's estimated that an additional million were not. In CT, 50K were registered. An estimated 300K-350K or more were not.
For the math impaired, that's 85% or so noncompliance in NY. 95% or so in CT.

Two states that haven't voted Republican in over 20 years turned around and told their Governors to actively go fuck themselves. Over guns. And not just on principle, but over evil "assault weapons," no less.

On top of that, law enforcement have done squat to actually enforce said law. A grand total of one county sheriff was caught on camera claiming he would go door-to-door if necessary. Of course, he was speaking to a particularly annoying protester.

Supposedly, the CT legislature discovered nearly 70% of their sworn officers were violating the law themselves. Nothing has been publicly spoken, but then again, I wouldn't if I was a politician either.
Thus we come to the first problem. Ignorance of culture.

For those of you not from "gun culture," let me enlighten you. Yes, we do have a number of beer-swilling hillbillies with minimal social skills and discourse that would give a Bitterness Studies major an aneurysm before she was halfway through her morning latte.

But that's nowhere near all of us.

Remember, at least 80 million Americans. From all walks of life, all races, religions, sexual preferences, subcultures, all of which know the gun. If you've been in someone else's home ever, you've been in a home with a gun in it. I can guarantee you. You might be aware of this, and then again you might not. In some cases that's from the "wary of personal questions" bit mentioned above. In the case of our more moderate and liberal brethren (of whom there is far more than you believe), much of them prefer not to deal with the unholy shitfits fired off by their ostensible political allies.

Gun culture. People who like guns. Like shooting them. Like talking about them. Like reading on them.

And we are everywhere.

So, Confiscation.

The only remotely feasible manner of doing so is a house-to-house search across America. Complete. Total. Oh, we could just confiscate current 4473's and go to the listed addresses, but those only go back twenty years. Guns keep. So door-to-door it is.

Only, who does the door kicking and subsequent handling of the armed and presumably irate citizenry?

The police?

Every officer competent in such operations is a member of gun culture themselves to one degree or another.

(Note, I didn't say ~every~ officer. I said every one worth a rat's ass at this sort of thing.)

Remember, in blue-state Connecticut, well over half the sworn officers in the state were defying said laws.

The National Guard? Same thing. Range time is expensive, and reserves get even less of it than active duty. Those who have the competence are those who train on their own time and dime. Gun culture again.

But why stop there? We've fucked the 2nd amendment, let's burn Posse Comitatus while we're at it. Send in active duty troops! Send the Marines! Send mercenaries!

Gun culture. Gun culture. Gun culture.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Now, our hypothetical leader will find ~someone~ to carry out said order. But I think we're starting to see it won't be followed well. Or competently. One way or another, doors would be kicked.

Oh, but you say, you truly think all of those people would fight back? Risk imprisonment, murder, or death?

It doesn't have to be all. Historically, such resistance is usually about 10% of those targeted. Which means about 8 million people.

That's the population of New York City.

That's one hundred and thirty TIMES the size of the largest estimate of the fucking Taliban forces I've ever seen.

And that's just those actively fighting back. That doesn't include those who hide, cover other activities, impede confiscating authorities, or otherwise fuck up the entire operation.

What could happen? Let's see...

... a police chief uses the edict to start taking down a number of known crack dens in his jurisdiction. A fifth of his officers have quit, so he's had to round it out with rookies and shitbags, but he still has the force to do it. On day five of operations, they raid a house and lose two officers, one torn to pieces. One of the gangsters waiting for them was an Army vet, and had rigged the front door with a homemade claymore mine. The chief returns to his desk with shrapnel in his leg and the blood of two brother officers on his uniform to find a notice from the commissioner. She's wondering why he hasn't kicked in the door of a single house occupied by a white family.

...A clerk at a temporary ATF station is visited by her nephew for lunch. Halfway through a wonderful homemade lasagna, her nephew excuses himself and carries a large plastic jug down a hallway. By the time she finishes, she can begin to smell the burning paper from the room of confiscated records down the hall.

... A shut-in widow who doesn't give a hoot about politics has been hearing gunfire in the neighborhood every night. Shaking her head at young people, she loads her late husband's shotgun and leaves it leaning against her nightstand. Her room is just far enough from the front door that she has time to grab and raise it to the charging rookie officer that forgot to identify himself.

... An Army Colonel stands on the outskirts of a small town in Appalachia with most of a brigade behind him. They are tasked with encircling and occupying the small town ten miles off of this state road. Cursing himself, the Col. clicks on his microphone and gives the order to execute. His body then collapses in a ditch beside his command MRAP. His Sgt. Major, born not 20 miles from where they stand, holsters his pistol.

And on, and on, all across America.

The Romans had a phrase. Murum aries attigit. "The ram has touched the wall."

It is in reference to siege warfare. Until the first battering ram touched the walls of the city, it could negotiate and surrender in peace. But the first touch of the ram indicated the inevitability of bloodshed.

At best, an attempt at Aussie-style confiscation means organized crime on a level that makes Murder, Inc look like an SNL cast. At worst, we're talking a second civil war. Where one side has all the worthwhile fighters.

So no, I'm not worried about someone taking my guns.

I'm worried about some fool out there having the political power, personal ambition, and bloody-minded stupidity to try.

Because once that order is given, no matter how or if we ever get out of it, we, as a country, will wade in blood.

That, I think, is far more terrifying than my own disarmament could ever be.

~J.

Picture
0 Comments

Grab a knife. Leave the panda.

10/21/2015

0 Comments

 
"Knives are like pandas:
A fighting weapon of choice only for the dense as a tub of lead, the sadistic fuck, the deeply insane, and the poor bastard with no better options.
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't use one if I had to. Or that I want to face some fucker armed with one. But there's much better activities to use such a thing for, and much better weapons to fulfill my combat needs.
That said, history is rife with poor bastards with no other options. So let's use this one. Grab a knife. Leave the panda."
- excerpt from "Assassination and Desperation: an intro to knife."
0 Comments

Why we don't ban like the Aussies

10/20/2015

0 Comments

 
Some uncomfortable math for those still wondering why the U.S. hasn't come close to having an Australian style gun confiscation.
Because the aussies are a decent analogue for Americans, right? They speak English, drink beer, watch cartoons and lack the natural healing factor and shape-shifting capabilities of the Canadians.
Legal and constitutional issues aside, we haven't come close to being hit as bad as the Aussies have been.
By the numbers now...
By and large, Australia's gun ban was triggered by the Port Arthur massacre. 35 dead, 23 wounded.
In and of itself, this is larger than any American mass shooting. Virginia Tech came close, 32 dead and 23 wounded. Next closest is Sandy Hook, 26 dead and 2 wounded, most of them children.
And even that doesn't take the prize for nastiest school attack. That honor goes to the Bath school bombing in the 1920's. And that one involved a teacher loading every basement of a multiple wing school building with explosives. 43 dead and 58 wounded.
But even that doesn't convey how hard Australia was hit in Port Arthur.
Australia only has about 23 million people.
As opposed to the US, with 320 million.
An adjusted for population shooting the size of Port Arthur in the US would have 490 dead, 322 wounded.
For perspective, that's 4 1/2 times the deaths of the oaklahoma city bombing. And that was done with a truck bomb and pre-9/11 police presence.
So if you want to ask why we're not doing what the aussies did?
Proportionally, we didn't take nearly as hard a hit.

0 Comments

Uncomfortable math on Aussie style

10/20/2015

0 Comments

 
Some uncomfortable math for those still wondering why the U.S. hasn't come close to having an Australian style gun confiscation.
Because the aussies are a decent analogue for Americans, right? They speak English, drink beer, watch cartoons and lack the natural healing factor and shape-shifting capabilities of the Canadians.
Legal and constitutional issues aside, we haven't come close to being hit as bad as the Aussies have been.
By the numbers now...
By and large, Australia's gun ban was triggered by the Port Arthur massacre. 35 dead, 23 wounded.
In and of itself, this is larger than any American mass shooting. Virginia Tech came close, 32 dead and 23 wounded. Next closest is Sandy Hook, 26 dead and 2 wounded, most of them children.
And even that doesn't take the prize for nastiest school attack. That honor goes to the Bath school bombing in the 1920's. And that one involved a teacher loading every basement of a multiple wing school building with explosives. 43 dead and 58 wounded.
But even that doesn't convey how hard Australia was hit in Port Arthur.
Australia only has about 23 million people.
As opposed to the US, with 320 million.
An adjusted for population shooting the size of Port Arthur in the US would have 490 dead, 322 wounded.
For perspective, that's 4 1/2 times the deaths of the Oklahoma city bombing. And that was done with a truck bomb and pre-9/11 police presence.
So if you want to ask why we're not doing what the aussies did?
Proportionally, we didn't take nearly as hard a hit.
0 Comments

Remember CJ?

10/19/2015

0 Comments

 
Anyone remember CJ in the early seasons of The West Wing? Spent most of her time arguing what should and shouldn't come out of the Prez's mouth?
Her job is true to life in that it's a natural outcome of a politician's main job being to get (re)elected, and that "a politician saying something misconstruable" is right up there on a reporter's priority list between "violent crime in suburbia" and "celebrity sexual deviances."
Add in the 24hr news cycle being ramped up since that show aired and the social media rumor mill kicking in, and the filter has only gotten thicker with time.
That's why you're hearing the same bland shit coming out of every career politician's mouth. Tailor to the party (and district), and it's all been so sanitized it might as well have an AMA recommendation sticker.
Then you get politicians who either weren't political animals to start with (Carson, Fiorina, Trump) or who just gave their last remaining fucks (Sanders). These fuckers are operating with no CJ. Any idea that flies out of their mouth, no matter how poorly worded or ripe for misconstruing, is aimed and fired. Unfiltered and unsanitized.
It's no wonder we're focusing on these folks. They're the only ones that could do anything. Everyone else is the same droning on, blah blah blah. Fucks not given, decisions made already.
Of course, it also means that in the desperation for something new, the risk of voting for someone on the strength of an idea they pulled from their ass at that exact moment with no clue of feasibility or consequences is there, but unintended consequences are all part of the game.
0 Comments

I look a lot at unintended consequences

10/14/2015

0 Comments

 
The announcement yesterday that Playboy will soon cease publishing nudes in their print edition (they stopped being on their man website last year) brought my thoughts that way.
And I wonder, are we directing erotica in a way that will hurt us further down the line?
For centuries, new ways to communicate were spearheaded by porn. The first photograph, the first movies, the first videotapes, the list goes on. Porn was the deciding factor in at least two format wars.
Then an abrupt halt came when both Apple and Google banned explicit apps. For the first time in history, porn did not lead the way. It didn't even begin the journey.
But of course, porn finds a way. Either by piggybacking apps like tumblr with somewhat loose guidelines.. or DIY. Now, sexting and suchlike is nothing new, but how much of it has been exacerbated by lack of another option on the platform? How much would not have happened had there been alternatives?
Are we driving erotica underground out of old-school shame mixed with millennial community standards?
Now, I admit that yes, I can find porn at the click of a button. But that's because desktops and browsers still haven't been eclipsed entirely by mobiles and apps. How will that be affected the more they're separated.
I'm not blaming facebook or playboy or apple here, all of these are businesses, and they're following the paths that let them make money. I'm definitely not joining the moonbats who think facebook should be a public utility or anything.
But our own internet laws are clumsy at best and counterproductive at worst. No help from the government level there.
Social activism has done little. No matter how many celebrities have flashed their tits on instagram, those nipples still aren't free.
And of course I can't have a post like this without harping on America's inability to separate eroticism, sensuality, sex, and nudity, instead seeing them as one big gagglefuck to be kicked into the NSFW ghetto.
How long are we going to be able to talk of such things on a platform where we can't show them?
0 Comments

Why I didn't comment on your gun related post

10/8/2015

0 Comments

 
Times being what they are, I'm rapidly getting to the point when I'm only responding when personally invited to comment, debunk, or whatever. But that said, here's the most common reasons why I'm not particularly commenting. Some may fall into one or more categories.
(In General)
- I didn't see it.
It's facebook, people. I do have a life. I don't always scroll through everything. There's over a thousand of you on my feed. And if I read all of you, how will I ever have time to read the ads?
- I'm on my phone.
As such, I don't have the bandwidth or time to look up the various databases to prove, disprove, or check what you're saying.
- You're a proven rant bomb.
For every sentence I respond with, I'm gonna get a couple paragraphs in turn. This might be preaching to the choir or it might be a buzzword bushel. Either way, life is too short to deal with your output.
- I don't know where to begin.
Your chosen piece might deserve a novella-length fisking or it may take a semester's worth of papers to explain and/or debunk. See, "I have a life" above.
(Pro-gun)
- You've posted something so mind-numbingly jingoistic that even a hard-dick trigger puller like me tilted my head and said, "the fuck?"
Seriously, you just posted the Fb equivalent of a boot wearing a moto shirt to the mall. Some wide-eyed yoohoo who don't know any better might still suck your dick for it, but you're not getting long-term credit for it.
- You didn't bother checking your sources or numbers.
You have any idea how fucking annoying it is doing the math to debunk my own allies? Vet your shit, godsdamnit.
- You're going off on a tangent.
I talk guns, violence, self-defense, the police, warfare, and issues surrounding thereof. Grab-bag rants ain't my thing. OK, the joke about how everyone who enters NRA headquarters gets out alive was funny. Once. It's still tasteless and unhelpful.
(Anti-gun)
- We've agreed to disagree.
Rare, but it happens.
- You're posting something so wildly emotional, it's pretty clear that
you're not looking for debate, you're looking for a target to vent your spleen.
No thanks. You want to squeal helplessly at someone, hire a dominatrix. They're expensive, but they'll get the job done.
- Past experience has shown you to be an intellectual coward who will just delete any comments that contradict your position.
Your wall, your rules. Enjoy your echo chamber.
- I've flat-out written you off as willfully ignorant.
This takes time and effort to achieve. It's not that I don't like you (though you've probably frustrated the fuck out of me). Likely multiple conversations have occurred, and you've buried your head in the proverbial sand. Usually you're not a dumb individual in general. Ironically, it takes some smart people to be this actively stupid. But alas, that's where you've fallen.

0 Comments

Teacupping theory

10/6/2015

0 Comments

 
So, I have a theory (spoilers for season 5 of TWD included)
Since the initial broadcasts I've heard some grumbling about the character of Dawn Lerner. Specifically, an Atlanta police Lt using the teacup grip when drawing her pistol.
(*Disclaimer: I haven't worked on TWD, nor have I talked with anyone present at the time about the scenes in question. This is pure speculation on my part.)
As an actor, I like options. That's why when teaching pistol grips to actors, I go from single-hand to teacup to weaver and isosceles. In historical order. I might add in more, depending on time, but those four always get brought up.
((That gasping noise you heard was the sound of other firearms instructors hearing that I teach teacupping.))
Yes, I do teach it, for a solid reason. It was a standard two-handed grip from the 1800's well into the 1960's when those wacky guys at bear lake started experimenting.
Even in modern pieces I like using it for inexperienced shooter characters, because it's a natural human response. Guns are heavy. Holding them out makes them feel heavier. A natural response is to lift under to compensate for holding some of the weight. Yes, it's less efficient than more modern grips. But it's a natural one to make.
So my question is, what if Dawn's grip was a conscious character choice, illustrating the fact that Dawn is not only a bad cop, but a shitty cop?
Look at her character arc and you can see how shitty a leader she is. This is especially true when we've already spent four seasons and change following Rick, another a former LEO in a leadership position. Dawn refuses to adapt to reality that she's not a cop anymore, that there's no judiciary or legislature backing up what authority she had before the world ended. She keeps a rapist like Gorman and a bully like O'Donnel on her force rather than disciplining, exiling, or executing them. She plays shitty political head games that only work as long as she controls the playing field.
In other words, she's an operator's nightmare. If military, she'd be a staff officer that had no leadership talent whatsoever, who winds up in charge with no higher-ups to answer to but a billet she desperately hangs onto because it's all she has.
Who's to say such a character wouldn't be a shitty shooter who showed up to qual and never went to the range on her own time? Who's to say she wouldn't revert to the more "instinctual" grip under her range of stress?
I'm not saying it's an only choice, but I am saying it's a valid decision to make.
0 Comments

How Jurassic World was awesome, and why people can suck.

10/5/2015

0 Comments

 
This is gonna be long, but I assure you there's a point.
A while back I saw Jurassic world, and I called Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard's character) a "physically useless social genius."
The more I think about it, the more I see that movie showing the three aspects of human interaction (Physical, mental, and social) and the three levels of expertise (useless, competent, and genius). I know these are broad and raw categories, but roll with me a minute here.
Claire starts the movie as a physically useless, mentally competent social genius. She's a virtuoso when it comes to schmoozing. Great at marketing, PR, and management, as all these skills involve getting people to do what she wants. She's not stupid at all. But give her a flat tire outside of cell service range or punch her in the face and she's useless.
A great deal of her character arc involves becoming physically competent. First in recognizing the problem (PUMCSR's have a problem with the Dunning-Kruger effect) then in realizing exactly what overcoming that entails. (at the waterfall scene, she rolls up her sleeves and ties off her shirt, while Owen asks what the hell she's doing. At this point, she's recognized the problem, but is focusing on the appearance rather than the substance). End result being, the woman staring at the door of paddock 9 with a burning flare in hand is far beyond the one we met answering her phone (stubborn lack of sensible shoes regardless).
Contrast her with some of the other characters.
First up is Masrani. Similar to Claire in that he's a physically useless, mentally competent social genius. He's smart enough to realize there's problems with i.rex and orders Owen brought in. Unfortunately, he doesn't follow the same journey as Claire and deludes himself into thinking he's more skilled than he is. Unfortunately, both dinosaurs and helicopters are creatures that can't be bribed, bullied, or bullshitted. Masrani dies because he's unwilling to accept that he's physically in over his head.
On the other hand, Hoskins is an inversion, being a socially useless, mentally competent physical genius. He's a 180 from Claire in that he has no preferable options other than force. He's very competent at using said force, taking over the control room and pointing out that firepower is the only thing that can stop I.rex at that point. What he fails to realize is that force isn't enough. Everyone has to sleep, and everyone needs to trust someone. That lack of understanding keeps Hoskins from realizing that raptors aren't guns or even attack dogs, and he gets eaten for his foolishness.
Then there's Lowry, the guy in the control room. Lowry is a socially useless physically competent mental genius. While he's brilliant enough to notice several things that go by his superiors (a drugged dino that escaped an enclosure is both terrified and stoned, evacuating the northern side of the park concentrated all the "prey" humans in the resort), he has nothing but snark and bad jokes for any of his superiors. And in what's Hollywood's biggest middle finger to the "nice guy" attitude, he tries to play his willingness to stay behind in an evacuation to flirt with a co-worker, only to be shot down hard. To his credit, he still stays behind, playing a part in taking down i.rex by the end.
Owen, by contrast, is competent all around but a genius in no particular area. And while competent, he's not infallible. He's unable to convince Claire or Masrani to take actions against i.rex that would have saved several lives, he's outsmarted into using the raptors as weapons by Hoskins, and he's a lousy flirt. But out of the bunch, he's the one who survives and thrives in both the normal world and in a crisis.
My point is, human beings need competence in all three spheres to be functional adults. No matter how much of a genius you are in one area, uselessness in another is something you will suffer for.
Why am I mentioning this?
Because on a macro scale, western society has been steadily losing competence in all three, to various levels.
Physically we're losing the ability to make it through a conflict, because we're being told from birth that fighting solves nothing. This is a cruel, cruel lie, which reaps a lot of pain when a fight comes to someone told it.
Socially we're dividing ourselves into smaller and smaller cliques, crippling our own emotional immune systems for the reward of being able to claim offense. Self-victimization is becoming nastier than meth.
Mentally we've standardized ourselves into cut-and-pasting from wikipedia, because snopes takes forever and even google wastes precious minutes we could spend forwarding some bullshit we never checked.
No wonder we're fucked. We're just finding out what we become useless at first.
0 Comments
<<Previous
    Picture

    Jay Peterson

    Musings on violence, storytelling, and humanity in general.

    Archives

    December 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    February 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    August 2010
    June 2010
    August 2008

    Categories

    All
    2nd Amendment
    Archer
    Armor
    Barbarism
    Blades
    Blanks
    Boobplate
    Book Review
    Chainmail Bikini
    Fight Scene
    Film
    Firearms
    History
    Killology
    Military
    Reality
    Safety
    Set Life
    Shakespeare
    Teacupping
    Theater
    Tucker Thayer
    USMC
    Viking
    War Stories
    Weapon Of The Week
    Workshops
    Wounds

    RSS Feed

Certa Bonum Certamen

Picture