The epidemic that is OCGD

OCGD or Obsessive Compulsive Gratification Disorder is a mental disorder or illness that gradually develops in the human mind and within a short span of time. It is contagious like a virus and it predominantly affects those in the film and television industry. Side effects include:

1. An obsessive need to glorify anything and everything that is infact insignificant - things in life that don't deserve to be glorified in the first place - and yet, they are anyways
2. Heightened egos
3. High levels of excusidus - meaning the individual having the disorder will be making excuses to justify the glorification to either themselves or to others when questioned, and
4. Extreme lethargy - propensity to either take the easy way out or be lazy enough to produce quality in their work

This particular disorder is a mental illness that hasn't been registered with the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual) used by psychologists and psychiatrists around the world, and the only possible treatment should be to admit the individual having this type of illness into a well-known or reputable mental institution for between six to twelve months.

To clarify, an example of an individual who has this disease or disorder is a filmmaker engaging in storylines that involve the 'boy meets girl' or 'man meets woman' romance style content without any clear meaning or purpose: simply just for the hell of it or a form of self-expression, or 'art for art's sake' even.

One may argue the reverse where a filmmaker is constantly engaging in storylines that involve the 'boy meets boy' or the 'girl meets girl' style content without any clear meaning or purpose, but those types of storylines aren't that prevalent to begin with or are rare. If they were, they would be classified as woke ideology by some.

There is another disease or disorder that is akin to this one. It is called: ADiS or Acute Disconnect Syndrome. This is also a kind of mental illness that needs to be registered in the DSM as the major symptoms include, but are not limited to:

1. Forgetting that you've disowned a family member for whatever reason they've been disowned for (there are plenty of examples of this)
2. Trying to fix who isn't broken in the first place
3. Hypocrisy (Delusions of deleting a person to "save" them or using religious scripture to fix them)

One example I can provide is the case of Thomas Bridegroom where he was disowned immediately after he came out as gay. They even made attempts once or twice to change Thomas by having a bible session but were unsuccessful. When tragedy struck, the demonic and entitled parents wasted no time by rushing to the hospital, claiming to be 'family' and preventing his significant other from visiting him. They have since blamed and continue to blame the partner for 'turning their son gay'. They have even prevented the partner from attending the funeral by threatening violence. This is an example of an extreme case of ADiS. 

At the end of the day, this is one of the ways we can protect our Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters from this brand of harmful behavior by institutionalizing mentally ill individuals like the ones described in my example above to restore harmony to equality.

Why it isn't worth getting into mainstream cinema anymore than it is today.

Getting into mainstream cinema was a big deal for an aspiring creative practitioner at one point in the past. It meant that either a production company, producer, a talent agent or a manager discovered you or you constantly had to go around and knock on their doors like some sort of an obsessed maniac until someone gave you the time of day or by some pure luck of the Irish to be discovered. However, the way things are headed in this day and age, be it all the cost cutting decathlons, I wouldn't hold my breath. Pretty soon, AI might be taking the place of a lot of the gatekeepers and this might make that even tougher for an aspiring creative practitioner to be discovered, given the fact that AI could be programmed to go through criteria that is often impossible to meet.

Overreliance on unqualified critics:

There is a lot of overreliance on critics who is by far more times than one, unqualified to make any credible criticisms of a creative practitioner's work from the get go. Granted that a producer or a show runner would want an ROI of the breakeven cost of a production + 30%, and considering the time and effort that is needed to develop an idea, a lot of them resort to taking the easy way out and a part of that would be to rely heavily on critics that do not have a background in film or TV production. A lot of times, these critics offer criticisms that sound smart, but in actuality, isn't. These critics are more about destructive criticism rather than being constructive. The only ones that are worth listening to or taking advice from are the established critics who do not have a god complex. If these so called 'critics' are supposed to take place of the average Joey to help decide whether an idea being developed is commercially viable or not, they aren't doing a very good job of it.

Sticking to a recycled formula:

The 'roll your eyes' kind of stick to the formula mentality applied to most of the movies produced through the decades and in recent years with all the book adaptations, the remakes and the reboots speaks volumes. Luckily, there are a handful of production companies and or producers or show runners that are taking the risk when a fresh idea comes across their eyes. The stick to the formula kind of movie production may also be a contributing factor for utilizing unqualified critics to safeguard the industry practice. At some point, we the average Joeys may be getting sick and tired of this type of movie production, leading to the gradual gravitation towards independent productions.

The ridiculous mantra and daily production schedule being followed:

When I was still in film school learning the filmmaking craft or fine tuning it, I quickly discovered that you are allowed to work a maximum of 12 hours a day in a production set and that there are productions that would easily take advantage of this. This leaves you little to no time for yourself or to unwind properly. You are expected to be on call at any time of the day no matter where you are or what you are doing at that time of the day the call comes through. I remember one perverted producer telling me (and I quote): "You can't have days off unless you are a hot girl", which was borderline disgusting and perverted. Also, the industry is infected with the saying: "If you're early, you're on time, and if you're on time, you're late." Personally, I found this to be not only ridiculous, it should have no impact on the quality of the work or the work itself that is produced that yields the finished product. You also sometimes get treated like you do not exist or verbal abuse is thrown at you for not trying hard enough. For this reason, independent productions are far better.

Do not be fooled by the celebrities and their facade of fame and fortune as what is happening behind the scenes suggests that the juice may not be worth the squeeze anymore for aspiring creative practitioners and screenwriters alike.

What is an acceptable cost for consumables when using writing tools and your printing equipment?

Buying and using your equipment is one thing, but as soon as you start factoring any operational or maintenance costs, they tend to add up to a significant amount. A lot of us make the mistake of adding in what it costs to operate or maintain our writing instruments or printing equipment into the cost of ownership and conclude that the new figure is in fact the true cost of ownership. However, this will not be the subject of discussion in this article. The focus is on the question on what is the acceptable cost of operation of the printing equipment or writing instrument after we have acquired it to make it worthwhile the initial investment. In other words, what would be a reasonable price to pay to use given a lot of times, equipment manufacturers will discourage us consumers to purchase competing brand or manufacturer's supplies so that the equipment manufacturers get the best benefit from the deal?

To help us decide, I've included a list options to choose from (expressed in percentage form). I'd like you to note that the amounts mentioned below are calculations based on the cost of ownership.

1. 15%
2. 20%
3. 30%
4. 40%

To help you choose, here are a few factors to consider in an example that I will use to illustrate my point: Let's take fountain pens and fountain pen inks. With fountain pens ranging from the most affordable that university students are included to purchase to the most expensive pens money can get its hands on. Fountain pens like the Pilot Kakuno or the Metropolitan, or the recently introduced Sailor TUZU with its adjustable grip feature and compare that to something like the Pilot Elite 95S (E95S), and something like the Fulgor Nocturnus by Tibaldi, which apparently, at an auction sold for a whopping USD8 Million.

It is crazy how much money is spent on something as simple as a writing instrument. I am including this fact just to put it out there. The average Joe on the other side of the nib doesn't have the kind of disposable income required to lavishly shell out such a huge amount on a luxurious fountain that costs at least an arm and a leg. IMO, the most reasonable price range that people would be able to afford without breaking the bank is around USD400 max. Anything above this price range can be viewed or written down as a luxurious spend on any writing instrument, don't you think?

Now that I've given you some idea or an outline of the prices for fountain pens, I would be more likely to choose option 2 from the above list of options presented. Once I've taken into account the quality and the characteristics of the fountain pen ink that I will be using from bottled sources, which is touted as the most economical way of purchasing and refilling the fountain pen in question. I am not taking into account the basic maintenance of fountain pens as these cost next to nothing. Keep in mind that this is to be used as a guide and not as a gospel of any sort. And simply by adding the cost of operation or maintenance to the cost of ownership and complaining about it won't magically make these costs disappear or take the pressure off the ink bottle.

Having said this, there is nothing stopping you from shopping for the cheapest fountain pen bottled ink available for your fountain pen and start using it - so long as it still offers the best performance and writing experience for your fountain pen and it doesn't do anything that either a) disrupts the flow of ink and,  b) does anything to your fountain pen to cause any major malfunction to your fountain pen.

Good writing techniques and the techniques of holding a fountain pen will also refute the notion that a more expensive fountain pen writes better than a more reasonably priced one. It is usually the person or the writer using the fountain pen, combined with the techniques of writing is what will make for a smoother or a better experience in using a fountain pen.

Is this the doomsday of the next digital version of cable TV?

I'm no expert, but given the recent trajectory or trend that has taken place, I'm seeing streaming services that compete for our entertainment dollars are either getting worse or at risk of becoming the next cable TV. When streaming was at its infancy, the few benefits that appealed to subscribers like no late fees, no ads, playing content on demand instantly at the click of a button or a tap on the tablet screen seem to have crossfaded into the ether. The same attractive proposition that allowed streaming services like Netflix discontinue their mail order DVD/BLU-RAY rental division and started this whole streaming explosion seems to have left a static malfunction on our screens lately.

Popularized by Netflix itself, streaming services have disrupted DVD and physical media sales for sure, but there were no annoying ads interrupting your viewing experience like every few minutes or so. That has all changed these days - unlike cable TV. I could understand that the channels and or your cable TV provider needed to make money and would have had agreements with companies where they get to advertise their products or services on cable so we viewers can buy said advertised product or service. At least with cable TV, the ads were timed into slots of every five minutes or so of the movie or TV show playing. You at least had the option to get up and walk away during the commercial break and do something else before returning to your regularly scheduled program. Albeit, you may or may not have noticed that the movies or episodic TV shows themselves were edited specifically to allow for commercial breaks.

Now a days, you have subscriptions plans that are cheaper for sure, but they have limited ads but it also limits the quality to Standard Definition (SD). If you needed to streaming in Full High Definition (FHD) or 4K, you needed to select a plan that costs even more. This practice seems to be on the rise and not as simple as it was once before. And I do believe it will be getting worse.

We are currently seeing this with YouTube with monetized channels on the platform. It started out with one ad at the beginning of the video when you clicked on it, but it then morphed into every 30 seconds to a minute per video. I get that content creators on YouTube need to make money somehow to keep their channel and content growing for us viewers to enjoy them, but having ads randomly play every bleedin' 30 seconds to a minute is a bit too much.

Plus, to add to the frustration, streaming providers can, and at little to no notice, pull that favorite movie or TV show that we love and cherish off their streaming library at anytime and we still have to pay a monthly fee to access their library. They can claim licensing issues from the suppler or the production company of the movie or TV show or space constraints all they like, but they will remove them nonetheless. The ever popular saying in the comment section on a handful of YouTube videos: "You will own nothing and you will be happy" comes to mind, which by the way is being trending around a lot lately.

So, the best solution I believe given the circumstances is to either go back to owing content on physical media or producing content on physical media for as long as it is still available and or source able.  This way, we can avoid the annoying ads, the monthly fee we have to pay regardless or our favorite TV show or movie being deleted from the library regardless of the excuses given by streaming services. I know this is something that is inconvenient to a lot of you, but would you rather contend with annoying ads every 30 seconds to a minute, making the content less enjoyable, or would you invest a little bit extra and own a physical media copy of said content.

Scarcity of specialist stores for screenwriters

How can it be that there are literally fewer to no stores that cater to the screenwriter demographic? The last such store I was aware of was it in Los Angeles, California, home of Hollywood called The Writers Store that also has an online presence and a dedicated customer service line. When a store like that exists and has been around for a while, then why on great Zeus’ Olympus would there not be one in either Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne, Australia, or countries like New Zealand for that matter? Considering the fact that every single one of these countries has their film industry based on one the major cities, it should be a no brainer that one should not exist. No matter how many times I have googled or searched the Internet for the keywords: “screenwriter stores near me” or some variation of the keywords, I have found that the search results would only reveal either stationary stores or stores for art supplies. Perhaps, the keywords are rather vague or ambiguous. Perhaps, I needed to be more specific in my search. Perhaps, there were other suppliers that I am not even aware of - perhaps.

There are certain benefits, no matter how few they may be, a specialist screenwriters store where resources and products are available to assist the independent screenwriter or filmmaker with their filmmaking or screenwriting journey and add tools like the screenwriters initial draft pad to their workflows relatively easily. Considering that every movie or TV show originates from writing that first initial draft during the pre-production stages, why not have these readily accessible in physical form? It would save a lot of time and effort fruitlessly searching on the Internet.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a physical and an online store that curates and have expert advisors and sales consultants assist customers/clients with their screenwriting and or filmmaking journeys? May be research needs to be done regarding whether the business model in question would be viable in the countries where such stores do not exist and one can argue that people usually find things like this on Amazon. Truth be told, when people flock to Amazon by default for things like this, their customer service are no experts - all they do is reach out to the sellers of the products in order to get the information needed for the customer before the purchase. A brick and mortar store or at least an online version of the store with a dedicated customer service phone number like what the writers store has is a better proposition than the default setting.

One thing that can be done is reaching out to the writers store and ask them how they did it as up until recently, their brick and mortar store in Burbank has closed down since last I heard. This will include the business model to see what worked and what didn’t. Anyone can take a risk and give this a go (if they are passionate enough) and make it work with a business model similar to the writers store. So what are we waiting for? Let’s do this.

What's on your typewriter these days?

If you've ever heard the expression or phrase: "What's on your typewriter?", this comes from the early days of Hollywood and screenwriters who used typewriters and when Hollywood itself was at the peak of the silver screen movie business. Ever since the computer took over the industry, this expression or phrase was adapted or altered to say: "What's on your computer?" This expression is for when you or someone wants to ask a professional or aspiring screenwriter in the business what project (if any) they are working on. They would then turn around and respond accordingly. If you aren't aware, the standard typeface for writing screenplays was in the courier font; it was also the same font used in typewriters. So, you can see where this standard originated from. We are now learning that the pandemic has not only caused people and other professionals to find ways to save money, but was also hobbies like rediscovery of vintage technology like the typewriter. So, should screenwriters return to the simpler time where typewriters were the primary tool for writing screenplays and has reigned supreme?

I remember learning typing for the first time on a manual typewriter. I also remember using one when my maternal grandfather had one in his house, and it was one of those electronic daisy wheel typewriters that allowed you to type one sentence out and then printed it automatically on a piece of paper. The keyboard was that of a computer keyboard as was the tactile feedback that it gave for the time period it was manufactured in. My maternal grandfather was a humble professor and lived in an area with lots of trees and fauna.

The typewriter, as I recently came to realize, offers a few notable benefits over something like a computer or a tablet of today. One such benefit addresses our fast growing concern for privacy: No hacking, no compatible software or firmware updates to contend with, or security patches for that matter, and no spying from big brother or his Uncle Sam. No Internet access to distract us from the pantheon of information or social media stuff that people are so addicted to these days. Typing words directly onto the page is all that is needed, whether you are typing up an original copy of what you're working on for yourself or to be sent to an intended recipient. While this is a benefit onto itself, if you do need to make multiple copies of said original document, there is always the option of heading out to your local photocopy/xerox store and paying a small fee to accomplish this.

Why bother though? Why bother when a screenwriter can use software to easily format their screenplay to industry standards to begin with, save and send it to the intended recipient(s) at the click of a button via email? There is nothing stopping a screenwriter from continuing on with this trajectory, but to quote a recruiter: "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." To be honest, this statement or affirmation resonates in me in a few different levels as it should for a lot of you screenwriters reading this article: We can continue to deal with distractions from social media and other Internet content that is making us lethargic, or we can become who we screenwriters are born to be. I (for obvious reasons) choose the later. It will afford us the opportunity to exercise patience when writing our screenplay, which is a key qualification for any screenwriter to possess.

Now that we've taking a look at the white knights of the round when it comes to typewriters, let's turn our flaming eye from the towers of Mount Doom and towards the dark lord of their misfortune. I give you the darkest of them all: constantly remembering  the margin or tab settings for each screenplay element when you get to it. This dark lord  may be defeated and with Mount Doom felled, patience will once again reveal itself to be the Frodo Baggins that brought in a new age and a new instrument of sorcery to help screenwriters once more who shall be there and back again with another Baggins. So go ahead my screenwriting shirerings, type away your adventures while Gandalf the wise guides you through Fangorn forest while the tree beards show you to the path to the other side, and to Minas Tirith.

Christians: You aren't hated for your Christianity, just your religiosity.

We've seen you complain, and we've heard you scream from atop Mt. Olympus to all the way to Australasia. While your concerns of being crucified each time you voice or share a dissenting opinion on a subject matter or a group of people is valid, you need to understand that these opinions are subjected to (hopefully) objective criticism and consequences. You also need to take on board the understanding that no matter what your religion has taught you or continues to teach you regarding said group of people or subject matter, and about people's livelihoods, you need to live and let live as the old saying goes. Bear in mind that you yourselves have your own lives to life. Adding to societal pressure is what you'd be doing should you continue to impose what you perceive to be an acceptable life or because you believe you have a higher standard on this. I'm not generalizing when I say this in this article, but I am speaking to those who take it upon themselves to not just make it known what they believe and the standards that they live by, but also act on it through violence and abuse (both physical and psychological).

You may find this difficult to digest, but god's true plan is for us muggles is simple - and it does not have anything to do with pure obedience or him having a positive impact on our lives through the teachings of various scriptures. That plan is for us to be born, fulfil or serve our purpose on Earth (our destinies if you will), and when done, return to him. It is definitely not the reason you are hated by the general public or the skeptics, or at the very least loathed by the progressive public.

Amongst your congregations, there is always that one individual who will interpret what is written in scripture and what it has to say about a particular subject matter or a group of people and decide that the only to handle (or correct) the situation concerning said group of people or subject matter is to use threats of eternal torture - or intimidation even. They refer to parts of scripture and argue that god hates a select group of people while sinning themselves. This explains why the world has seen book publications from non-theologians or non believers (as some of you may refer to them as) such as Sir Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. These henchmen (the religiosity kind) often believe that god has chosen them as missionaries to deliver what is again perceived to be divine justice, when it isn't the case. They have a 'holier than thou' mentality or a "I have to delete you to save you" complex. Yet, we still allow them to live free or die hard with no consequences to them.

What these religiosity individuals fail to understand or grasp is that there are other more pressing issues in the world that demand our attention than worrying about how Joe Bloggs next door is conducting his life. Examples of such individuals include, but aren't limited to the minister or pastor of your local church or may be the country's pope even. There are certainly red flags that are so obvious that are frequently overlooked. I will discuss this later in the article.

Rest assured that most of us are as respectful as they come. However, we know for a fact that there are those in every group that ruin for the entire group. It is up to us to ensure and or uphold the integrity of the groups while not allowing power hungry demons or monsters go all righteous on us and use it as weapons for our psychological destruction.

It is for the religiosity that you are hated for and not for your belief system per se. You can make a difference and get into god's good graces by putting those power hungry demons in their place and promote god's true plan for us. You cannot get your morality from a book but by connecting with god directly.

While it is pretty natural for followers of any religion to look up to a figure of authority when said authority figure deploys their charisma and irresistible charms, we cannot allow these chumps to overrule our sense and sensibility just because they believe that god wants them to eliminate a certain percentage of the population. And for what you may ask: because they are either believed to be inferior or not worthy of god's love or his kingdom - or them for that matter. This form of righteousness should not only be condemned, but also be met with applied consequences.

We cannot stay silent simply from fear of negative consequences or succumb to threats of eternal torture of our souls from these demons. That's how they trap, psychologically bully is and get away with it.

On to the red flags I mentioned earlier. Look for these in your congregations, your place of worship, workplaces and educational institutions:

1. They can't help talk negatively about a specific group of people or a topic of controversy and continue to complain about it.
2. They keep using buzzwords like: "the right path" or "straying away from god" to get us to pay attention to them.
3. They won't stop bringing Lucifer (aka the devil) and how he's causing all the problems of the world or place blame on the devil when they observe changes in the world that they don't like - changes that they'd rather not see.
4. They will most likely resort to unconventional, unproven or frequently dangerous methods to force people into giving in to their way of thinking and believing, which often leads to psychological damage to their victims. Perfect example of this is conversion or reparative therapies that have been denounced by the medical professions of all areas - and they show no remorse or signs of atonement when their dirty deeds are exposed.

Mahatma Gandhi one said - and I quote: "I like your Christ, but not your Christians." If you truly believe in the son of god and what he stood for, you cannot just rest on your laurels and preach about him. Your true Christianity shall shine when you are still able to retain your belief in god without the assistance of a book that contains old and rusty laws, or a figure of authority in your congregation telling you otherwise. 

God's love can be shared without any judgement from any scripture or religious authority. Others may disagree and claim that those who aren't worthy of god and a place in his kingdom do not deserve it, but you need to beg to differ. Let's change the narrative and prevent hostility to anyone in the community. To do this, society will need your help and your effort in this journey. I hope you take the first step.

Your Story, Your judgement - trust it.

A producer or a screenwriter's greatest asset is the story that he or she conceptualizes and uses their creative flair to shape the story.

Then why on great Zeus' Olympus would they not trust their own judgement when it comes to the stories that they create and have to share? Why do they need to heavily rely on someone else to decide whether these some of the most amazing stories that are floating around are any good or worth the viewer's time? And why do some professional decision makers in the industry give up their power to these unqualified and sometimes inexperienced individuals? And why are professional producers and showrunners in the industry of today apprehensive when it comes to taking risks?

We can understand from a producing standpoint that a lot of money is being invested in making a blockbuster movie and that a lot of thought and design work goes in during the pre-production stages, and that a producer or a showrunner does expect a healthy return on their investments when all is said and done. However, the issue is the over reliance on critics and the giving away of too much of the power in the hopes that these critics may help the screenwriter, director, producer or the showrunner produce better quality content - but alas, they've been duped.

Let's begin our discussion with why on Earth would the professionals in the mainstream film industry not trust their own judgement when it comes to the stories that are told and or are produced for the viewing audience? After all, they are relentless when it comes to the proposals submitted by aspiring content creators. I would argue that because of the amount of money and time that needs to be invested in a movie or a spec script as the industry professionals would like to refer to it as. The producer or the showrunner's natural expectation of a healthy return on this through the sales and promotion of the movie once it is has undergone the production and post production stages, and the strain it places on the filmmaker plays a huge part in this equation. I would also theorize that the goal of saving on costs and having the content or movie produced has certainly not only entertained the minds of the producers, but they may have also made it a standard practice in the industry. It can be good when done right, but this particular hydra seems to have produced some new heads that makes it difficult to deal with.

For the purposes of this article, I want us to set aside these expectations and practices in the industry and ask ourselves this simple question: "Are producers incapable of trusting their own judgements? If the answer is a Yes, then they shouldn't continue with the project. If the answer is a solid No, then they shouldn't be needing to heavily rely on unqualified and inexperienced Joe Shmoes to determine the quality of their work. This goes for every other screenwriter and filmmaker on the planet. That's for your target audience to determine. They do not need to rely that heavily on anyone who is clearly not qualified or even under qualified for the job. It'll be like the hire manager of a company or a business hiring someone who doesn't even know what they're doing and expecting that person to deliver a quality product/service to their standards. It doesn't work like that.

Critics of today have positioned themselves as gods of the industry and they will lash out against anyone that challenges their power. The producers and showrunners, out of fear may have essentially given away their power to these (dare I call them) smart a$%es.

Another possible reason why professional producers and showrunners are heavily relying on unqualified and often inexperienced individuals is due to either plain laziness or in an attempt to save costs. I would argue both only because they don't do their due diligence in picking these questionable individuals, and or want to get to the production and the post production stages faster than a speeding Valkyrie. I've observed this happen one too many times with my classmates in film school: they were to eager to get to the production and post production stages and did not bother with the entire rewriting process of the project that we were assigned. This didn't surprise me as they were too impatient. I on the other side enjoyed the whole rewriting process every single time a project was assigned.

Why the article then? Why do I believe this is the biggest issue since the American civil rights movement? When you allow your story to be critiqued by questionable people or individuals, you are basically:

• Taking the easy way out
• You don't trust yourself when it comes to your own story, or your characters even.
• You are sacrificing the quality of your creations.

You need to set yourselves an affirmation every single time you engage in a new project or submit your work for critique. Believe in your characters and your story. And as part of that affirmation, tell yourself that this is your story - and you are the only one who is allowed to judge your own creations. If you feel you need a second opinion for whatever reason, find yourselves a well established critic who may or may not charge an arm and a leg for their services, but will provide you with constructive criticism. Only seek them out if you feel that your story is way too important for you to self critique.

If you strongly believe in your story and in your characters, you will find within yourself to be the judge automatically until you know that the story is perfect. To quote filmmaker S.S. Rajamouli: "Don't make films just for the money. Do it because you believe in your characters and your story". That is the key to producing or making quality films, TV shows or other content in the mainstream or independent cinema world.

Also remember this: No pain, no gain and No risk, no reward.

The human morality scale

Something happened in the middle ages and the dark ages: the persecution of the LGBTQ individuals (specifically gays). The darkest time in human morality.

There is nothing in the law books that says your freedom to practice your religion affords you the right to impose it upon the unsuspecting public in any country or continent, and yet, it does happen no matter how progressive the world becomes.

For thousands of years, religion has been at the forefront of human morality, often resulting in a few members of the clergy taking advantage of the blind faith that people have in their so called wisdom to propagate their agendas and or their worldview of things. It also gave rise to laws that are more in line with fascist dictatorships in continents like Africa and the middle east. Asia wasn't immune to this either.

While skepticism against religion growing within modern society is a healthy sign, we're still allowing religious scumbaggery to flourish with little to no consequences. These religious organizations are still enjoying the benefits of tax exemption status that our governments are able to afford them. We still have a long way to go.

While the constitution says nothing about being able to impose your beliefs, values and worldview points or religious teachings, it should come as no surprise that this sort of thing continues to happen (especially in the middle east). Either someone resorts to radical extremism or takes steps to pass laws knowing full well that the citizenry will need to follow the rules or face consequences. It is either 'their way or the highway' as the old saying goes. These radical losers don't seem to want to do anything to better themselves or pursue any goals in life. Same goes for those who pass laws that infringe on a citizen's personal life.

Forcing innocent people to subscribe to a viewpoint or a belief system by threatening them with dire consequences (both spiritual and legal). The threat of this penalty sure does have a psychological effect on the victim in various degrees. A few of these includes, but not limited to: Being ostracized from society or a particular community that the victim grew up in and grown accustomed to, a sense of worthlessness, and not being able to share the love and compassion with another human being of their choice. Some of these religious demons really make the divine creator not very welcoming or approachable. They solely rely on the threat of eternal torture to maintain power and control, thus proving: its their way or the highway mentality.

The fact that most argue that the holy bible or any other religious text is the absolute word or law of the divine or another god is in itself flawed. I could easily refute this argument by simply finding any book written by a particular author, holding it up and boldly claiming that whichever book I was holding is the true word and law of the said author and anyone who argues against this is a heretic and deserves eternal punishment and torture to the fullest extent of the law. We all know how that would turn out to be.

Then why are we allowing this to happen to other people? I do not believe simply by citing co-existing peacefully as a valid reason as the religious scumbags and or nut jobs will always inevitably find a way to abuse this privilege no matter how strict the rules are against them.

They can complain all the way to Hades and back to Earth, but I believe that the best solution to tackle this will be to:

• Not allow any form of recruitment, subscription or affiliation with any religion until a citizen or individual has reached the age of 15 or discernment age between what it is fiction and what is fact or at least discourage it in the first place - and maybe even banned in some cases
• No special treatment for religious organizations and communities or disingenuous respect from members when they use threats (which by the way should be punishable) of eternal torture. They all should be treated the same as any ordinary citizen.
• No tax breaks. This means no tax exempt status by default. However, should governments still decide to offer religious organizations tax breaks or tax exempt status, these organizations will need to prove to the citizenry or to the government that they are still worthy of receiving these benefits on a consistent basis.
• The religious organizations can have a say or give their two cents worth when it comes to social issues, but the second they resort to imposing their beliefs, values and viewpoints onto the vulnerable or the unsuspecting younger generation, they need to be ostracized, exiled or both - no exceptions.

If we were to evolve as a society, the world needs to step up and up its game. I would strongly recommend that religions and religious scumbags are treated the same when committing a crime or when engaging in a commendable act: i.e. give credit where credit is due. We need punishments other than sending offenders to jail only to have them re-enter society and commit the same crimes again. For crimes that inflict psychological damage on their victims, I would recommend a psychological punishment be in order. This will fit the crime more than sending them to jail by default. I may not be a qualified therapist or psychologist, but experience suggests that human beings adapt to change only when the mind is subjected to psychological trauma or a tragedy in life. The penalties should reflect this. As long as there are religious people who feel that they are doing the divine's work by imposing their worldviews and belief systems on to the rest of us, we as a society will continue to be victimized by this childish entitlement.

I will leave you with this:

As long as you are fearful, there will always be he who will keep you fearful.

 

Mediocre romance films and why they need to be held to a higher standard than they are now

Romance is a highly popular and profitable genre in the film and television industry. According to a report by the Motion Picture Association, romance films accounted for 13% of the global box office revenue in 2019, making it the third most successful genre after action and adventure. The genre also dominates streaming platforms, with Netflix producing multiple original romantic comedies and dramas every year, such as To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before, The Kissing Booth, and The Princess Switch.

However, the genre's popularity and profitability do not always translate to quality and creativity. Critics and viewers have pointed out the flaws and clichés that plague the romance genre, such as unrealistic expectations, stereotypical characters, predictable plots, and problematic messages. These issues not only affect the artistic value of the genre but also the social and cultural impact of the genre, particularly on younger and more impressionable audiences.

Therefore, I propose that romance films and filmmakers should be held to higher standards than any other genre in film and television. By higher standards, I mean that romance films and filmmakers should strive to:

- Challenge the conventions and tropes of the genre: Instead of relying on the same formula and patterns that have been used for decades, romance films and filmmakers should explore new and diverse ways of storytelling about love and relationships. For example, they could subvert the audience's expectations, experiment with different formats and styles, or incorporate elements from other genres. Some examples of romance films that have done this are Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 500 Days of Summer, and The Shape of Water. This includes demanding that the pantheon of screenwriting instructors/gurus/teachers and filmmaking schools raise their game and not allow mediocre ideas to flood the market with meaningless stories that are super predictable.

- Represent the diversity and complexity of the real world: Instead of portraying a narrow and idealized version of romance, romance films, and filmmakers should reflect the variety and richness of the real world. For example, they could feature characters and couples of different races, ethnicities, genders, sexualities, ages, cultures, and backgrounds. They could also address the challenges and issues that affect real relationships, such as communication, compatibility, conflict, and compromise. This can come from both heterosexual and gay couples and not just from tunnel-visioned heterosexual relationships. Some examples of romance films that have done this are The Big Sick, Moonlight, and The Farewell.

• Whenever a perverted filmmaker proposes an additional idea for a boy meets girl love story, we can point out that there are other areas of love that they are missing out on and encourage them to explore these. Examples include: love and bond shared between a parent and child, between cousins, between grandparent and grandchild, between friends (i.e. bromances). It doesn't always need to be sexual in nature like most perverted filmmakers are known to think up. 

• Each time a perverted filmmaker proposes the idea for this boy meets girl premise, we need to ask them these questions:

1. Why have you chosen these particular characters to fall in love with each other?
2. How are the two characters complimenting their weaknesses with each other's strengths?
3. Why have you chosen only straight couples for this movie? 
4. Why have you not chosen characters that belong to the LGBT community to tell this story?
5. Can these chosen characters convert their weaknesses into strengths while being together? Why not? 
6. Can you think of ways where the characters are able to turn each others' weaknesses into strengths without them having to fall in love with each other? Why not? 
7.  Why should you always have the male character chase after the female character? Can you accomplish the same by reversing the roles?

- Empower and educate the audience: Instead of reinforcing harmful and outdated norms and values, romance films and filmmakers should empower and educate the audience. For example, they could promote healthy and respectful relationships, celebrate individuality and agency, and inspire positive and meaningful change. They could also raise awareness and spark dialogue about important and relevant topics, such as consent, equality, and social justice. Some examples of romance films that have done this are The Perks of Being a Wallflower, The Half of It, and Promising Young Woman.

By holding romance films and filmmakers to higher standards, we can not only improve the quality and creativity of the genre but also the social and cultural impact of the genre. Romance films and filmmakers have the power and responsibility to shape the way we think and feel about love and relationships, and they should use that power and responsibility wisely and ethically. Romance is not just entertainment; it is also education. We deserve better.

Why the gay community needs to be afforded the right to self defense training in these times of increased hatred and self hatred.

I am super passionate about this topic for 3 reasons:

1. Just because you disagree with how someone is living their life or the fact that said someone is living a life that you consider an 'abomination' is not a strong enough reason for you to go out of your fucking way to destroy their lives. 
2. We have all been taught to either judge or hate against a particular group of people (like the outcasts) at some point in our lives.
3. Mediocre films and other entertainment content from established sources (like the perverted filmmakers) that promote and or glorify the boy meets girl premises are responsible for this stigma, hatred, and backlash from society (even in small towns).

The LGBT community has been subjected to violence, harassment, and bullying for a long time. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, violence, harassment, and bullying are violations of fundamental human rights ¹. The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status ⁴. However, LGBT individuals continue to experience unprovoked violence at a much higher rate than the general population ³.

Several organizations provide self-defense training for the LGBT community. For instance, Armed Equality is a Southern California-based group that focuses on making self-defense training more accessible to the LGBT community and stresses the importance of educated decisions ³. Operation Blazing Sword is another group that provides gun education to the LGBT community to ensure responsible gun ownership ³. 

In addition to these organizations, several online resources are available for self-defense training. Ammo.com provides a self-protection and concealed carry guide for the LGBT community ³. The guide offers tips on how to defend oneself from unprovoked violence and how to use firearms safely.

You have the right to defend yourself against hatred and self hatred - from The Sensei film.

Opponents of self-defense training for the LGBT community may argue that it is unnecessary and that the community should rely on law enforcement to protect them. However, this argument is flawed because law enforcement is not always available or reliable in protecting individuals from violence and harassment. In addition, self-defense training provides individuals with the necessary skills to protect themselves in situations where law enforcement is not present ³.

Another argument against self-defense training for the LGBT community is that it promotes violence. However, this argument is also flawed because self-defense training does not promote violence but instead teaches individuals how to protect themselves from violence and harassment ³.

The first rule of self-defense is to de-escalate the situation. If the aggressor still refuses to back down or listen to reason, then it would be time to use self-defense.

There are plenty of examples where members of the LGBT community have been cornered and attacked by not one, but a gang of aggressors who were stalking them. They will even attack anyone who supports them:

California Woman Fatally Shot For Displaying Pride Flag Outside Her Store

It is essential that the LGBT community has access to affordable self-defense training. The Equality Act in the United States expands on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity ². However, self-defense training designed specifically for LGBT individuals is rarely discussed, let alone available ³. 

Source: Conversation with Bing, 07/10/2023

(1) Self Defense for LGBT: A Self-Protection and Concealed Carry (CCW .... https://ammo.com/articles/lgbt-self-defense-guide-lesbian-gay-bi-trans-community.

(2) The Elusiveness of Self-Defense for the Black Transgender Community - SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3689118.

(3) LGBTQ+ self-defense class offers tools in the face of adversity. https://www.tampabay.com/news/2023/05/30/lgbtq-self-defense-class-offers-tools-face-adversity/.

(4) ACON Pride Training - LGBTQ+ Awareness and Inclusion Training. https://www.pridetraining.org.au/.

(5) undefined. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3689118.

(6) undefined. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3689118.

(7) Defenders of the human rights of LGBT persons constantly at ... - OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/defenders-human-rights-lgbt-persons-constantly-risk-warn-un-experts.

(8) There’s a problem with the LGBT rights movement - The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/theres-a-problem-with-the-lgbt-rights-movement-its-limiting-freedom-101999.

What screenwriting instructors get wrong about teaching screenwriting

Whether you are new to screenwriting or just trying to brush up on your skills as a seasoned and professional screenwriter, screenwriting courses can be a blessing or a nightmare. What is the use of taking a screenwriting course only to walk away learning little to nothing after having paid all the fees and time learning about the craft?

While some screenwriting courses are better structured than others, it's the individual teaching the screenwriting course that makes or breaks the students' ability to be successful at their craft - using words to illustrate the story they are wanting to share. There are also different ways to learn screenwriting as each teacher or instructor is different. But they all have a few fundamental flaws in common. These flaws not only ill prepare the students to go out there and woo the showrunners with their talent, they practically enable any bad idea that a student can throw at them in screenwriting workshops (if they even have them). This not only does not do the aspiring screenwriters any favors by not helping them advance their careers, but it also takes away the quality from the screenwriters' work.

I've been to a few screenwriting classes (about half of them are beginner's screenwriting classes) and at first, I did not think of it much, but now that I am older and more wiser, I have to wonder why these screenwriting classes suck so much - factor out the part where I was studying in Los Angeles, California and where I have gained some industry experience, the issues are still prevalent with any beginner's screenwriting course (whether you are charged peanuts to learn or an arm and a leg is besides the point).

The opening question of "why do we watch movies?":

Why do we watch movies? Is that the best these teachers or gurus can come up with? Did their awareness meter drop all the way down to zero when they ask this question? Are they ignorant to the fact that they are teaching a screenwriting class to bunch of people who will be tomorrow's greatest writers? I'd say yes to all of the above.

What they should really be asking is this: "why do we tell stories?" This is the most appropriate question to ask the students because it is most relevant to the class and the subject matter at hand. In his book: Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harari claims that all human beings are sociable people and that we have a habit of gossiping from Smallville to all the way to Vancouver, British Columbia. When the question about why we tell stories comes up, it will result in a variety of responses being received from the students. The truth of the matter is that students from different backgrounds have different reasons to why they are taking a screenwriters class. Maybe they have stories that they found intriguing that they want to share with the rest of us, or maybe some will simply say that they are only doing it as a means of self expression.

Whatever the reason may be, I would strongly advise against asking the question about watching movies and gravitate towards why we're taking the screenwriting in the first place learning about it. What can happen when this question is asked is the students will be more open to discover their own voices sooner rather than later after everything is said and done in their lives, which by this time, the audience and the industry would have moved on.

Screening movies rather than studying already written scripts:

If you have ever completed a screenwriting class, you will find that the students will be watching the movies that have been finished. Meaning that the final rewrite has already taken place before distribution to the general public. I say final rewrite because editing a film or any content is classified by editors in the industry as the final stages of piecing a story together with all the footage in sequence that is coherent and a natural flowing story that people will (supposedly) enjoy when it is released to them.

What the students should really be doing is getting into the habit of reading screenplays and familiarizing themselves with how effective descriptions are written in the screenplays they are studying. They need to be practicing the craft within the confines of screenwriting school in order to make sure that the quill is in fact mightier than the sword.

When I first started to officially learn screenwriting in 2011, our screenwriting instructor at that time (Mick Curran) was the first screenwriting instructor/teacher to tell us that we need to be using dynamic action verbs in our screenplays. Same goes for directors directing their actors. While he had some great advice, I would say that him showing a movie towards the end of the class was what put a stop to the urge to start writing. It is for this reason that screenwriting teachers and gurus should focus more on getting the students to practice their writing rather than wasting time watching a finished film.

Not challenging mediocre ideas from students:

I'm not sure how many times I've come across a situation where almost 100% of the time when it comes to conceptualization of a film, most students are not even being challenged. I would put forth the notion that this is primarily due to the fact that the teacher or guru teaching the course will suffer backlash from the students or from the higher ups if this screenwriting guru is working for a large educational organization that has set its sights on gaining more students than turning existing students into quality screenwriters. When there is obvious evidence of mediocrity in the ideas been formulated or presented by the students, the screenwriting guru or teacher doesn't challenge their students. They will simply accept that "is the idea, now let's make it a reality". That sort of mentality is not doing the students any favors as all it is doing is pumping out more mediocrity and weak competition in the industry. No one is standing up to the mediocre screenwriters and telling them to "do better". Probing questions need to be asked why the student writer has come up a mediocre idea and if said student writer has done their research and asked themselves whether their idea is a heavily recycled one.

Leaving the student writer to figure out how to write effective descriptions:

While in screenwriting class, the student writer is given a few examples of how to write effective descriptions that leap off the page, but there are no tips offered on how to approach the complex topic of writing it so that the reader is instantaneously compelled (in a good way) to turn the page. There should be a lot more time spent on practicing writing out descriptions effectively and exploring how these descriptions differ from Genre to Genre.

Until this is done, quality of the work put out by screenwriters will be either subpar or non-existent.

Most screenwriting gurus haven't critiqued a screenplay, aren't a reader from the industry or are a produced writer themselves:

Most screenwriting gurus have no idea what a reader will look for in a screenplay, because if there is one thing I did learn about film critics and script readers in the industry is that they are always looking for ways and or reasons to say no to your film or screenplay. They (the critics and script readers) are always on the lookout to find something wrong with the work of the filmmaker or a screenwriter.

I know. For a guy that heavily critiques the critics, I sure have done a complete 180 in supporting them, but no. I am simply affirming from experience, based on the fact that critics in the business do this. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I have started to analyze a critic's feedback or critique to determine whether or not I was receiving, fair, balanced and objective criticism rather than the destructive kind.

What I would love to see in these instances is a stringent code or criteria set by the industry that will keep all the shitty critics and script readers out while seeking out the most genuine ones out there.

Until something changes, it will all remain the same for generations or centuries to come. My passion for screenwriting was realized during the final semester of being in film school. I noticed how I really enjoyed the writing process and how I was looking forward to rewriting it if the story or the characters or anything in the script needed fixing. This is unwavering. What would make it better for the rest of those are aspiring to be screenwriters who would one day end up working in the industry.

My ideal country

Have you ever wondered what it would be like having or running your own country?

I am pretty sure that once the idea germinates into the minds of other people (including the ones that are criminals), every single person on the planet would dream about their ideal country and what would be permitted and what will not be permitted. Also, I am pretty sure most of you will be thinking about the type of people you'd like to have live with you in said country and what the politics and the policies in this country would be like.

I'm going to go ahead and give you my version of this:

My Own Country

The naming:

I would pick a name that is easy to pronounce. I would also pick an area that is away from the major continents and would only let select members of the public know about it. I would choose a name that suggests 'respectable' and 'worth'.

The Citizens:

The citizens of said country will all have fluency or mastery of the nation's language. They will be respectful to one another and live by the axiom: "Treat your neighbor the way thou wished be treated".

The laws of the land:

Citizens will be allowed to live the lives that they choose and will be responsible for their own health and wellbeing.

A citizen will be allowed to subscribe to or formulate their own religions. However, they will need to agree to the nation's fundamental law that they are not in anyway, shape or form allowed to force the average Joe in the nation (including immigrants) to conform to their beliefs. They are not to demand respect for their religious beliefs while deploying methods or tactics that forces or compels another citizen to subscribe their religion that they are trying to promote.

To assist with the process of manufacturing a religion, the laws of the land shall make some recommendations as to what to consider and what to exclude. The ultimate decision will be left in the hands of the individuals or the congregation who are forming or manufacturing their religion. They will also be guided on what to do if a member of a said religion commits a crime that is punishable by the nation's laws.

Furthermore, they are not allowed to cause harm in the name of their religion to any citizen for whatever reason - even if they say it is being done for the greater good. If they do violate this fundamental law, they will be taken to the nearest shore and be drowned for their atrocity.

The Justice System:

When it comes to Crime and Punishment, the country shall decide that the perpetrators or the offenders will suffer a fate worse than death itself. Since prison time is becoming less effective in reforming these offenders and prevent them from repeat offenses, a psychological penalty should be more effective than that.

The punishment for causing harm to a citizen if one citizen disagrees with the life choices of another is automatic banishment or death (depending on the nature of the crime and severity of the alleged crime).

To decide on these matters, instead of a system of jurors and a judge like in the western hemisphere, there will be a panel of 3 - 4 judges chosen before a case can be presented in court.

The Education System:

Public education will actively be discouraged in this country in favor of homeschooling. The government shall provide life coaches who are qualified in passing down life skills and will encourage their clients/students to gain as much life experience as possible throughout the course of their life.

Children will be encouraged to learn their language skills from their parents and once reaching the age of 7 years, the parents will send in their expressions of interest and or their applications to seek a life coach for their children.

The only private education allowed will be tertiary education and even then, these tertiary educational institutions will be required to price their courses and their degrees quite fairly. They must use the life experience gained by a potential student to assess said student's eligibility for admission into an institution and the courses being offered. Literacy will also be tested as well as meeting with the parents.

Entrepreneurship following graduation:

If after graduation, a citizen has an idea to start the business, they will be given access to all resources available to assist in getting started. The entrepreneurs will however, need to provide adequate training to whoever they are choosing. They will be required to choose candidates from the country and will receive tax breaks for doing so.

Manufacturing:

All manufacturing will need to be staying within the country and the government will encourage this by offering tax breaks and salary supplementation if needed. The government will work with individual businesses to negotiate this.

Importing goods into the country:

Goods may be imported into the country but will attract higher taxes to consumers than those produced and sold within the country. Importation will only be allowed when a government approved inspector accompanies a supplier of goods to a proposed country and examines the conditions of manufacturing. This will be the deciding factor when approving a supplier to import goods from a country.

Trade agreements will also be revised by the government upon input and feedback received from the citizenry.

Consumer Law:

All citizens are afforded the right to dispute faulty goods and services with a supplier should a problem arises. Suppliers and retailers alike are not allowed to place restrictions and limits on consumer goods when it comes to guaranteeing their safe usage. However, to take advantage of this beneficial to the citizen piece of legislation, the citizen or consumer in question will need to be honest and a mediator will be chosen to act as an observer during the initial stages of the dispute between the consumer and the supplier of goods/services and will need to file a report to the relevant governing body. The next steps will then be advised by the governing body based on this report.

Selecting of a senator or a congressman into government:

When selecting a congressman or a senator to represent the citizens in government, the government shall select an individual from the general population and request referrals and recommendations from the citizenry. It will not be the same as voting, but if enough people recommend a selected individual, said individual will be appointed as the nation's representative into government.

As for governance and leadership, the nation will have a president and a governor.

Military and Defense:

All military personnel will be afforded the ability to invent futuristic and powerful weapons to defend against invaders and will be tasked to work with manufacturers in the country to secure defense contracts for the supply of said weapons. Any manufacturers who are willing to step up to the plate and assist the military personnel in defending against enemy troops will be awarded a special benefit by both the the citizenry and the government.

The Media:

The media shall be independent and all journalists will be required to be as objective as possible. There will be a governing body that will release a report to the citizens based on feedback (including complaints) received from the citizens and rating the media on a scale of A - F (with A being a top notch, reliable, credible and trustworthy source of news and information to F being a complete joke to the country).

The Entertainment Business (including filmmaking and Broadcast television):

Filmmaking and Filmmakers:

All filmmakers will be afforded the right to make films and content as long as they are able to demonstrate that their work doesn't unnecessarily glorify something that happens in real life or influences a citizen of the country to break any laws. Quotas will be set if said filmmaker is in the habit of making too many romance based movies concerning the opposite sex and has been found to be constantly glorifying it for no reason. The quota in question will be a 50/50 measure: for every film that a filmmaker produces containing two characters that are members of the opposite sex, said filmmaker will need to produce one for the LGBT community.

Same goes for broadcast television:

All rules that apply to filmmakers will also apply to broadcast television as well. There will be no special locations alloted to the celebrities because they are celebrities and the citizens will be required to respect their private life since these celebrities will be living amongst the citizenry.

Why Quora is the worst Q & A site on the planet and detrimental to your knowledge base

It was by chance that I found Quora. At first, I found this site to be interesting and noticed that the biggest feature was voting on answers and responding to and commenting on answers. Not to mention the recently added ability to choose your credentials when answering a question. While this can be a benefit in most circumstances, it can be used to mislead the asker as to who is giving the answer.

Not long after signing up and starting to use the site to exchange knowledge, I soon found out that the moderators are not very well qualified (any Joe Shmoe or an unqualified dick head can be promoted/elected to be one).

I found that the site allows anyone who is a provocateur to delete, report and insult you when you try to engage in a civil discussion about it. Now, I am not denying that when a topic is a subject of controversy, some people will get emotional, but I tried to keep a cool head the entire time and tried to reason with the provocateur - big mistake. One even accused me of being an 8 year old sitting in front of his father's computer and failing to understand the reality of the world. Contrary to said accusation, I am old enough to have gained enough life experience to know that you cannot win a debate by insulting people or win an argument by using the strawman fallacy. You win an argument or a debate through reasoning and acknowledging the other point of view. And this is something that my mom always keeps reiterating. Also, I will show you the respect you have earned if you do the same. 

However, what I found to be the problem with others (both on the Internet and real life) is the fact that I am expected to give people the benefit of the doubt while excusing their inability to understand my point of view. Well , enough is enough. If you'd like to hear my point of view, I will be more that happy to share it and let you know upfront that I will not allow myself to be forced into accepting another person's point of view. Plus, when I try to ask sensible questions, I am shut down and blocked.

Quora is not the only culprit in this scenario. Other platforms like Facebook and Twitter are also guilty of the same crime - whether it is legal or not. Let's start with what makes them hypocritical to begin with.

The Be Nice Be Respectful or BNBR Policy is a complete joke and a farce

While every social media site has to have a policy that regulates their users and ensures that the platform is safe and secure for them to use, there are a quite a number of examples where a user (possibly a troll) has violated this policy and Quora does nothing to act on it. However, I have found myself in a situation where I wanted to find out more about why a user would believe a certain way and challenged them on their beliefs, said user ended up reporting me, deleting my comments to their comments, and receiving an email from Quora advising me that I have violated policy. I also keep wondering how on Earth are they still in business? I would have imagined that a mass Exodus would have taken place like it has been reported recently about Californians leaving California and moving to elsewhere in America.

For what it's worth, Quora has a policy, but platforms like theirs tends to enforce it against the wrong kind of people - the opponents who disagree with a certain narrative. Fortunately, we have a term in the legal books called "Selective prosecution". I am also left to wonder how on Earth is there no class action lawsuit against social media giants like these ass holes, or even a record of it being talked about it.

The support for members

Support for members who need it only exists by means of messaging. I tried appealing a couple of times where a comment of mine was found to be in violation of their terms of service or their BNBR policy even. All I received was confirmation that said comment was in violation of policy but no evidence pointing to what about the comment violated the BNBR policy. I responded by challenging the response and I have not heard back since.

Also, they will arbitrarily delete or not approve one or more of your answers that you have posted on certain forums and not respond when you ask them why they declined it.

Furthermore, what happens in some instances is that commenting is disabled for some answers from the get go or in the middle of a conversation with another user. Not sure if this is a glitch or whether members are doing this on purpose to avoid scrutiny, but there is definitely something to raise an eyebrow at.

People asking questions to answers that can easily be found using a google search

I primarily answer questions relating to screenwriting, the film industry and filmmaking. However, questions like: "How do I become a good screenwriter?" or "How do I become a better director?", or "What do I need to make a great film?". While I am pretty sure that the answers that the asker will receive by asking these type of questions will have some good advice, but when it comes to advice from professionals, it is non-existent. All you have to do is take a look at the credentials included of the person who answered the question and you will find that most of the people answering the question have no relevant qualifications to give the answer any credibility.

A lot of these questions can simply be answered by typing these exact questions using major search engines like DuckDuckGo, Google, Yahoo or Bing. I will admit that some of the answers posted on Quora will come with recommendations that a simple Google search will not necessarily include in the search results, but I also can't help it think that the asker is either lazy or trying to ask as many questions as possible to take advantage of the partnership program where they are paid to ask questions on a daily basis. Yes, there is a partnership program where you get paid to ask at least 10 questions on the site daily.

Users copy pasting a question verbatim before beginning their answer

I have found quite a few instances when I asked a question on Quora or when someone else asks a question on Quora, a few of the users have a super annoying habit of copy pasting the question verbatim before they start answering said question. It is mind numbing why they do this.

I asked one of these users why they did this and the response was less intelligent then a thermometer showing that your temperature is normal. The response: "In case the question is lost or is reminding the asker what they have asked. You can clearly see the question displayed before the answer. I have to wonder if they were blind to this fact.

If you have found other problems with Quora, please mention them in the comments below.

Knowledge is either incomplete, biased or sourced from Wikipedia

When looking through the answers that other users have written, some of the answers are either super biased, sourced from Wikipedia or incomplete to the point where further research is required. It would be a waste of time for a user to do research and post those findings on Quora only for some idjit to report the answer and get it removed for reasons ranging from the answer being politically incorrect to being downright offensive.

I have moved away from relying on Wikipedia for information on any topic because any Joe Shmoe can create an account and write whatever he/she wishes (no matter who incomplete or inaccurate) and Wikipedia doesn't do a darn thing about correcting it - even when someone points it out to them.

The last draw

The last draw for me came when a user responded on one of my answers with an opinion. I calmly pointed out that this was an opinion that I had and that I will be respecting their opinion but they will need to return the favor. I also pointed out that they were using forceful tactics to make me agree with them.

The same thing happened as before: I received a message from Quora advising me that a comment had been deleted because it was found in violation of their terms of service.

Remembering what happened the last time this occurred, I immediately deleted not only their comments to my answer, I also deleted my comments corresponding to their comments. I did not even bother to appeal this one, because I knew what the response from Quora will be.

I then emailed an account manager or an account admin requesting that they delete my account on Quora because I felt attacked and not respected while giving the respect the users expected of other people.

I am done with Quora and if anyone reading this is considering signing up for Quora, run. Run as far away as you possibly can until you have found the one Q & A site that does not do what Quora and other social media platforms are doing to some of their genuine user base.

And if you haven't already after you have read this article, raise holy hell against Quora or start a class action lawsuit accusing them of unconscionable conduct.

To conclude:

There are much better websites that will serve the purpose that Quora will and if anyone out there is thinking about starting a competing Q & A site, have a policy where you specify that people will be shown respect if they themselves give it, and have users sign up by invitation only.

Quora is not the site it was marketed to be. It is mostly for those who need their feelings, their belief systems and their political ideologies validated and attract attention towards themselves.

As long as it doesn't end in violence or other sinister acts being commited, we all can respect each other, and acknowledge each other's beliefs and points of view while not forcing the objectors or the opponents of a viewpoint or a belief system to confirm to our ideology.

Why I distrust reviews on YouTube, and why you should too.

When reviewing a product like a piece of technology or a movie for example, one would expect the reviews and the reviewer to be objective in their reviews. However, given the popularity of YouTube and independent websites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes (Ewww!) even, you cannot distinguish whose reviews are being genuine and which ones are fake. Unfortunately this is becoming difficult and nearly impossible to tell with the pantheon of reviewers saturating both the Internet and YouTube.

Over the past couple of decades however, these reviewers have gotten so bold that anyone who is anyone is able to review a movie or a piece of technology whether they are qualified or not, have been churning out reviews that are not entirely objective, nor provide clarity on who would be the right target customer based or the right target audience for a movie for example. They defend their poor quality criticisms by calling them constructive criticisms. They argue that they are expressing their opinions. Maybe some of them are and maybe some of them are justifying their poor criticisms with excuses. Zeus only knows the answer to this. And to add insult to injury, nobody seems to be analyzing their feedback or criticisms and challenging them on this by asking relevant questions.

And where are these 'critics' coming from or originating from? Mostly from the Internet and YouTube if you were to ask me. Some of the critics are down right paid trolls and it shows in what they say about a particular product or reviews.

The biggest problem with critics:

The nitpicking - especially in product reviews. How on great Zeus' Olympus can they sit there in their armchair, with that flashy looking headset of theirs (while trying to look cool/stylish), and in front of their computer with that fancy keyboard that they spent more money than necessary for focus on every god forsaken flaw of a product or a movie and claim that you are expressing an opinion or providing constructive feedback? Let me tell you, these so called 'reviewers' or 'critics' aren't doing themselves any favors by nitpicking. They simply need to stare the crap out of themselves in the mirror and ask: "why I am doing this in the first place?" 

The fact that these critics on the Internet need no documentation or anything to show that they are qualified to offer any sort of criticism (constructive or otherwise) should be a cause for great concern.

Examples of poor quality criticisms:

• When it comes to movies and TV shows, every single aspect of the story is over analyzed and shredded to bits and heavily criticized as not being realistic or not believable. This is true when it comes to action movies and fantasy based movies and TV shows. What these idiots fail to see is that movies and TV shows are make belief, they aren't meant to be realistic because the audience wants to 'suspend their disbelief' when they watch the movie or TV show in question. They also fail to understand that when movies are made and stories are written, they are based off of the "What if" scenario and then answering that question in the end of the movie. 
• Here's the scoop: any movie or TV show that is heavily criticized is the best one to watch and anything that is heavily praised is to be avoided at all costs. 
• If you'd like an example, the critics who heavily criticized the film The Tomorrow War deserve a super strong and harsh slap on the face. They criticized anything and everything wrong with it. Are you fluffing joshing me? When I finally got to see the movie, it was a fantastic experience. Very well planned and executed. With J.K Simmons and Chris Pratt as the duo hero team working together to defeat the enemy.
• Smartphone reviews. Okay, I will give a pass to two individuals on this one: MKBHD and Mrwhosetheboss on YouTube. Most reviewers of smartphones however, are a different story: They start off with the specs as always and they compare it to other popular smartphones on the market. Some even argue how Android is better than iOS and make the same old dumb ass recycled arguments about the operating systems that are often refutable. They forget who the target customer base is for each operating system of the smartphone. These are also the type of reviewers who only focus on the hardware features and specifications and base their criticism off of that. They never really touch on the user experience. I have seen a lot of debates (some of them heated) arguing why this smartphone is better than that smartphone and yadiyadi yadda. Not even a mention of who really goes for something like that. Not everyone needs the features boasted about a particular smartphone.
• Camera lenses. When reviewing these lenses, I am pretty sure reviewers not only zoom in on a particular section of a still image or a moving image, they also fault the lens for having these imperfections and expect the rest of us to fork out big money to buy the lenses that they recommend. Since the final image will be viewed in its entirety, why would they bother with the darn details? The average Joe will not be purposely looking at the image for these flaws so what the bloody Lucifer are they doing here? The average Joe will only be interested in the experience of it all. Plus, they're not even mentioning who would use the lenses they are reviewing. There are areas that these critics are focusing on that aren't really relevant in some professional settings:
• De-clicked aperture ring: This is where when you turn the aperture ring to a desired number setting, the ring clicks when moving to the next number until it reaches the desired setting. I can only thing of one scenario where this could cause a problem: If you are recording a moving image and changing the aperture at the same time. However, I am not sure why this is relevant because most of the time, you'd keep the aperture constant and change it before capturing the next image or another image.
• Chromatic adoration or purple fringing: This is one of the most commonly critiqued flaw when reviewing lenses. This is where there is discoloration in parts of the captured image. This happens when the reviewers zoom in on various parts of the image and spot it. Not exactly sure why this is such a big issue for them when they bring it up.
• Comparing lenses from two different manufacturers: Like most product comparison reviews, comparing two different lenses that are similar in focal length and specifications from two different manufacturers has become common, and one again, while comparing images taken by these two competing lenses, the critics focus on the same darn aspects of the lenses. The competing lenses may cost less and yes, the general consensus is to determine whether the drop in price is even worth the cost and investment into the lens, but no mention of who would be the target customer base for them.
• Other tech like cameras and computers. Again, the specs and the hardware features come into play rather than the user experience of it all. They don't even reveal in their review who the equipment being reviewed is for.
• When it comes to cameras, rolling shutter seems to be the popular point of critique when talking about cameras for video. A lot of these reviewers do test hybrid cameras like the Sony A7SIII or a Canon or a Nikon Camera even. Rolling shutter is where when a camera is panned in quick succession, it creates a jelly affect. In movies, the panning is consistently smooth and slow: not as fast as these guys are using for the test. It is not an accurate test.
• When it comes to computers on the other hand, the critics rely on scores provided by a website by Geekbench. They take this number and make a preliminary determination about the performance of a computer. A lot of these critics reviewing computers are either computer enthusiasts or hard core gamers - not the average Joe. They forget that the average Joe is not into gaming or the average Joe is not into fluffing Geekbench scores.
• Some critics will determine that if a computer does not have the latest generation processor, it is a deal breaker. My rebuttal to this would be that if it gets the job done in a reasonable length of time, it is up to the darn job. I would also ask the question: "What it is about a computing device not having the latest generation processor that is making it such a deal breaker? Why do you believe this BS to be true?
• Complaining that elements in a script, finished movie or TV show are unrealistic, not believable or illogical: Seriously? You really want to go down that road?  Let me ask you one question: You spend an entire of your life dealing with reality and now you're telling me that you want more of it? How sad is that? Movies and TV shows that are produced from a written and fully polished screenplay are make believe. They ask the "What if" question. Plus, a lot of the reviews on YouTube complain about elements that are easily refutable. The movies have been made for their entertainment value and not there to satisfy your so called "realistic" expectations. People really want to suspend their disbelief and escape reality for a change.

And it will still continue:

Even if every manufacturer of a product or producer of a movie or TV show were to address all criticisms raised by the so called 'critics', they still won't be happy. They will still find something to criticize about. That is the honest to Zeus truth. They are always on the lookout for anything and everything wrong with a piece of technology or movie or TV production.

And we trust these guys?

The consequence:

The more power we give them, the more we distrust ourselves in making decisions that affect us and our choices in life. Letting someone make some of these decisions for us is letting someone else manage our money when being accused of being incapable of managing it ourselves - when all the while, we are completely capable of managing it ourselves. It undermines our confidence. The same thing is happening when we let critics decide what to buy or tell us what not to buy, they are undermining our confidence in making this decision on our own.

Sure, when large sums of money are involved, you don't want to make the wrong move and lose it all unnecessarily.  We can trust our instincts and factor out any compulsion or temptation that is influencing our decision. We know better that to allow someone to rush us into making a hasty decision like a salesperson urging us to accept the deal he/she is offering right then and there. You especially do not want to do this with investing. Here, you also want to trust your instincts and remove all temptation or impulsiveness from the equation.

But not all critics are created this equally bad:

Some criticism is warranted. Examples include when critics criticized the first two God's not Dead movies, I could see their point. When critics criticized Nicholas Spark's movie The Choice as being predictable, I can absolutely attest to this because I went and watched it and concluded the same. There are instances where critics are right, but for the majority of the cases, they are so wrong on a lot of levels, and this is why I am calling for every person who comes across any of these types of critics to call them out on their BS or at least challenge their analysis of things.

Why I distrust the reviewers:

Time and time again, the reverse was proven true when I conducted the movie experiment some years back. I picked 5 movies that were heavily criticized and 5 that were heavily praised. I found that it was the ones that were heavily criticized were the ones that were really good. It has caused me to analyze the criticisms at hand and determine whether they were constructive or destructive in nature. To be honest, the majority of the criticisms you come across are destructive masquerading as constructive criticism and opinion based. They are not objective, but heavily subjective. This is why you see poor quality movies and TV shows being made and poor quality products being made because no one can win as long as these unqualified critics are running the show.

Critics are always wrong.

When critics told Elvis Presley that he had no talent and that he wasn't going to make it in the music business, we can see how wrong they were and this will never be openly admitted. As for Elvis, look at where he is now. He is the fluffing King of Rock and Roll for crying out loud.

Having said this, there are a few reviewers you can still trust. The key here is objectivity. You need to look for reviewers that are giving their objective view on any piece of tech or movie/TV show. Someone who understands who a particular piece of gear. tech, movie/TV show is aimed at.

So in conclusion, reviewers on YouTube and on the Internet are plentiful and are like the Wild Wild West (not the Will Smith kind). They are super subjective and have nothing of substance to offer except for nitpicking on everything and calling it an objective/constructive criticism or an expression of opinion where no qualification exists. And this is why we shouldn't be taking their criticisms at face value or accepting their criticisms as valid 100% of the time. Asking probing questions to determine how they came to this conclusion about a said product/service, movie or a TV show is key to deciding which critic we can listen to and which ones to ignore right from the get go.

We should be trusting our instincts and not let anyone undermine our confidence in our ability to make these kinds of decisions for ourselves just like we would never let someone manage our money when we are completely capable of doing this ourselves. Sometimes it can be an expensive exercise to try and figure out which product/service or piece of tech worked out for us and which ones didn't. However, if this can build our confidence in ourselves, then I'd say go for it.

We can do this people.

Don't let anyone, and I mean anyone, undermine your confidence and attempt to steal your dreams.