Should The Walking Dead Have Toned down the Violence?

Disclaimer: This article is entirely opinionated, and will contain multiple spoilers from the Season 7 premiere of The Walking Dead. If you have not seen Season 7, Episode 1 of The Walking Dead yet, do not read this.

The extremely gruesome Season 7 premiere of The Walking Dead set the Internet ablaze. Many long-time viewers withdrew their investment from the show, complaining that it went too far and perhaps crossed a point of no return. Following these complaints, the producers went on to tone down the violence for the rest of the season.

In a statement made by Gale Ann Hurd, he says,  “We were able to look at the feedback on the level of violence. We did tone it down for episodes we were still filming for later on in the season …  This is not a show that is torture porn, [we want to make sure] we don’t cross that line.”

First off, here’s how I feel about the episode. I loved “The Day Will Come When You Went Be” so much that I ranked as #2 in my Top 5 all-time favorite episodes in the series. I commended the three minute teaser of Rick pledging his allegiance to kill Negan, with Negan responding by dragging Rick into the R.V. to go on a road trip. Almost the entire Internet forgot the fact that directors like to play around with their T.V. shows’ timelines, and that they are fully entitled to do so. Are we going to pretend like this is a new trend? Plenty of episodes throughout the series have opened with flash-forwards. The most notable example that I can think of is Season 4, episode 16 (“A”), where the first minute shows a battered Rick covered in somebody else’s blood. Fifteen minutes later, Rick gets into an altercation with the Claimers and rips out a chunk of their leader’s neck with his teeth, leaving us right where the episode began. So no, flash-forwarding definitely isn’t a new trend.

While violent, Season 7, Episode 1 served a purpose in driving the show forward. It established the character of Negan as a ruthless, cruel, sadistic, depraved, sometimes comical, unrelenting authoritarian leader who uses violent coercion tactics to bend people to his will. That’s precisely who Negan is. The scene where Rick almost cut his son’s arm off was intent on getting him as well as the audience to obey Negan unconditionally. Despite that Rick didn’t actually chop Carl’s arm off, the sequence demonstrated that in an apocalyptic context, it’s people like Negan who resort to extreme measures in the name of survival.

When it was finally revealed that, indeed, Abraham took the beating, I wasn’t all that surprised, yet I also hated to see him check out. The only complaint I have here is that Abe’s death, well, wasn’t as violent as I expected. It would have been nice to see Lucille convert his head into nothing but ground-up meat, but alas this is television and you can only get so violent before you create serious psychological problems for your viewers.

But Negan’s second victim really struck some emotional chords, and this is where things became controversial. Daryl, in a fit of blind rage, got up and punched Negan in the jaw, who then exacted further punishment on the group by turning around and striking a clean blow to Glenn. Here, what disturbed the audience so deeply was not Daryl’s blatant stupidity in trying to fight back, but the uncompromising reductive and degrading nature of Glenn’s termination. Glenn, one of the few remaining moralistic members of the group and a character that has been present in the show since the first episode, was reduced to nothing but another piece of meat, with his skull caved in and his left eye popping out. That’s messed up–really messed up. I was amazed at how AMC was allowed to get away with displaying such morbidity, yet at the same time, the ultra-violence didn’t bother me because I understand that this is supposed to be a horror show.

I’m infuriated that the producers toned down the violence. This is a show where people get torn apart and eaten while they’re still alive. It’s proven itself to be a lot more graphic in the past. Why should a few complaints ruin it for the rest of us? I’ve tried explaining that the reason Glenn’s death was especially traumatizing was because he had been in the show for so long. To watch him struggle to utter his last few words to Maggie with his left eye popping out of his skull was, and should be, scarring, but it shouldn’t necessitate a scaling back in one of the most fundamental elements of the show: the violence.

Am I just desensitized to gore and carnage at this point? Most likely. Either way, I’m looking forward to the second half of Season 7. I’m always excited for what Negan will do and say next.

A Look Back on the Trump Campaign

With fewer than 5 days to go before Trump is inaugurated into the presidency, I wanted to turn the clocks back and discuss the most contentious election of all time.

I once made a Facebook post that took a bit of a stance on the controversy surrounding the unearthed 2005 tape. My take away message was that, despite Donald Trump’s vulgar comments, they weren’t enough to change my opinion of him, and that people shouldn’t take them as a personal attack. With all of that said, several of my friends still became enormously outraged, and it didn’t take long until the discussion devolved into an exchange of back-and-forth, ad hominem attacks.

In Trump’s defense, most men and women have objectified another human being in one form or another, so nobody is off the hook here. The major difference between Trump and the average person is that Trump’s objectification was exceptionally obnoxious. Did I mention that he was running for president?

The truth is, the “Trump said this” and the “Trump said that” drama could never quell my enthusiasm for him. In fact, it only reinforced my enthusiasm. Why? Because I became tired of the media always telling me what to do and what to believe.

I have traveled across time and space trying my hardest to hate Trump, but really what I was doing was subordinating to other people’s opinions, not my own. Really, I was afraid of the scrutiny I would receive had I revealed who my preferred candidate was. When Trump first announced his campaign on June 16th, 2015, people took it as nothing more than a joke. How could an outsider with zero political experience actually get a shot at the most powerful position in the world? And yet, as Trump’s numbers soured and his popularity increased, there came a point where it became essentially taboo to speak of him positively. Today, it’s not just taboo, it’s condemned. And that’s why I’m writing this article.

Let me ask, what business do mainstream media news outlets, Facebook Trending, or Hollywood celebrities have telling me that I’m supposed to dislike Trump? If people voted for and elected him, then obviously I should get to exercise some right to support him. Nonetheless, if you so much as lightly defend Trump these days, you’re asking to get dismissed as a sexist, a racist, a misogynist, or a bully. You can’t win.

While we’re on the topic of bullies, Trump’s success is mostly accredited to the ridicule he directed toward his opponents, and for the most part, it’s worked wonders. Can you really blame his first-time approach to politics when his strategies have propelled him to victory? I can’t. Furthermore, the 1, 2, 20, or even 100 offensive comments he has made over the years pales in comparison to the dozens of Hillary Clinton’s lies, crimes, and scandals.

Are we ever going to bring up the good things that Trump has done over the years, such as fly a sick child to the hospital on his private jet, donate his personal earnings to health organizations, and offer a $10,000 reward to the Buffalo bus driver who prevented a young woman from taking her own life? The list goes on (Wenkert, 2016). Also, with talks of Trump purportedly hating, devaluing, and demeaning women, let’s not forget that he appointed Barbara Res in 1980 to be the first woman to supervise the construction of a skyscraper, and that his second campaign manager was a woman.

Regardless, the prevailing argument against Trump is that he is simply unfit for the presidency. A business man? Running the country? That’s like a lawyer performing brain surgery for the first time. Yet something tells me (and I could be wrong on this one, so don’t quote me) that almost anyone could run the country if they were a natural-born leader who could handle the incredible pressure of the world’s toughest job. With effective delegation and a solid support network, I’ll hedge my bets with Trump if it means he’ll shake things up in a positive way.

I’ll close off by saying that I hope Trump performs well in office. If not, then we’ll vote him out in 4 years, and we’ll have every right to complain. But for now, can’t we just give the man a chance?

 

Reference

Wenkert, S. (2016, May 29). 15 Great Things Trump Has Done » REGATED. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://regated.com/2016/05/great-things-trump-done…

So What If I Like to Be Alone?

Where do you mostly find stimulation? Do you prefer the company of others for energy, or are you mainly excited by the calmness of your own inner world, and all of the unique things that it has to offer? For a second, this sounds oxymoronic. How could you derive energy from activities that regularly suppress energy, like playing video games, listening to music, and watching movies?

As almost everyone is probably aware of by now, the phenomenon I am discussing is known as introversion, and introversion, like many things, falls on a spectrum. It’s possible to display characteristic tendencies of reservation and reclusiveness while also demonstrating a marked enthusiasm for group settings and get-togethers. Therefore, it would be unwise of you to classify yourself as 100% introverted or 100% extraverted when elements of the opposite dimension factor into your behavior across multiple situations.

Personally, I try to avoid labels at all costs; I don’t like labeling myself as “this” or “that” because it is overly reductive. I certainly don’t like labeling myself as an introvert because it’s a lazy way of summing up my personality. Rather, I would prefer to say that I possess a predominately introverted brain because, while I am almost always happy to hang out with my friends, I won’t always feel comfortable when catching up with distant relatives or delivering a presentation in class.

There is a downside to living inside my head, though. Because my brain is predominately introverted, I fall on just about the farthest end of the introversion spectrum that you can imagine, if such a spectrum exists. Consequently, I miss out on a lot of the luxuries more extraverted people are able to enjoy every day. One of these luxuries may be striking up a conversation for the first time and potentially initiating a meaningful relationship. Keep in mind, however, that this does not mean I am shy or afraid to socialize. It just means that it’s hard for me to conjure up the willpower to socialize, as doing so would exhaust a great deal stamina. Still, once the words start flowing and dialogue is exchanged, I’m hugely relieved.

The main issue I have is with the production of spoken as opposed to written language. After prolonged social encounters, I become what I would like to call “socially exhausted.” I’ve tested it empirically, too, and my cutoff for socializing is about 90 minutes to 2 hours, depending on my mood, the amount of sleep I’m running on, and other factors. By that time, I no longer feel like talking anymore. I speak in three word sentences, stutter, make speech errors, and sometimes struggle to even find words to say, whereas when I am just meeting up with somebody, words come to me effortlessly.

There are times where I think of my introversion as a disability, but I’ve learned to simultaneously appreciate it for what it is. I thrive on solitude, and I don’t really mind it. I endure fewer arguments and disagreements with other people, explore facets of my consciousness that I don’t normally pay attention to, and derive pleasure from introspection and careful analysis of my feelings. That, I believe, is one of my better qualities.

The truth is, this poor introverted brain that I’m stuck with? I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

The Apocalypse Might Not Kill Us All

Normal body temperature fluctuates daily from 98.5 to 98.7 degrees Fahrenheit. When you contract the flu, you will feel terrible. You’ll have a sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, headache, or muscle aches, but your body temperature will also elevate way beyond its normal range, causing you to feel like you’re burning up and that you’re on the brink of death.

Fevers are triggered by chemical agents known as pyrogens, which flow in the bloodstream. Pyrogens activate special receptors in your hypothalamus that signal to your body’s immune system that is has to work overtime, and thus raise your body temperature enough to kill off hostile bacteria and hopefully eradicate the sickness. As unpleasant a fever may be, it serves a critical survival function in that it helps your body combat a potentially life-threatening infection.

So why the science lesson? Because a fever, no matter how bad it makes you feel, is an inherently good thing.

In my previous post, I introduced this idea of “good and bad” thinking—that if you incorporate perspectives that you hadn’t previously considered into your attitudes, you can begin to convert every inconvenience into an opportunity. This week’s post is about putting that idea into action so that you don’t have to feel like the inconveniences that do spring up in your life have to be treated as though they were end-of-the-world catastrophes. While practicing this strategy of thinking, that fever of yours could be treated as a welcome addition to your sick day, assuming that you drink plenty of fluids!

If you still don’t believe me, I’m going to provide three examples of objectively classifiable catastrophes, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and the bombing of Hiroshima, to further demonstrate that beyond all of that large-scale destruction is an opportunity for positive change.

Disclaimer: I am in no way neglecting or dismissing any of these disasters. I am merely using them to illustrate the point that, in spite of the inconceivable destruction and enormous loss of life, they still brought some good.

September 11th

9/11 is thought of as profoundly devastating because it was an attack on American people and most of all, an attack on American values, or the very fabric that once made America so highly esteemed. Over 3,000 innocent people, many of which were mothers, fathers, boyfriends, and girlfriends, lost their lives while two of the most iconic towers in New York City collapsed in just 102 minutes. What further exacerbated this tragedy was a growing hatred and gross misunderstanding of the Islamic faith (Rose, 2013).

Those who were directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and lived to see the next sunrise could never truly let go of what happened to them. At the same time, many participated in what was one of the greatest coming-together occasions in all of American history, while multiple foundations were established that appropriated funds toward other causes like hurricane relief and the assisting of emergency respondents (Davis, 2013). The attacks also motivated the Federal government to upgrade security measures and conceive of the Department of Homeland Security, which has since been responsible for multiple counter-terrorist operations.

It just demonstrates that while terrorists can destroy all of the buildings they want, they can never destroy the American spirit.

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina was an event of destructive proportions. The storm, with winds stretching over 50 kilometers and blowing 40 mph on average, caused the deaths of an estimated 1,833 people and a whopping $108 billion in total property damage (Zimmermann, 2015). It is ranked as the sixth strongest storm in recorded Atlantic hurricanes, and has sent the city of New Orleans into social, political, and economic disarray. Thousands of people were left without homes, stripped of all hope and a will to move on.

However, even Hurricane Katrina had positive effects. Juan Williams (2010) uses the example of former New Orleans resident Josh Levin, who wrote in a post for Slate Magazine saying “[Katrina] gave New Orleanians an unprecedented opportunity to remake a city that wasn’t working.” According to Levin, Republican Joe Cao and Democrat Mayor Mitch Landrieu used the storm as an opportunity to tackle rampant poverty, crime, and education issues, inciting major reforms that would set the city in the right direction and essentially hit the reset button. Williams also states that interestingly enough, Hurricane Katrina lifted the stigma off New Orleans’s widespread poverty and improved upon previously tense race relations.

Right now, New Orleans is still in a very tight spot, but even if it takes another 10, 50, or 100 years, I believe that someday that town will be better off than before Katrina first made landfall.

Hiroshima

Unlike the 9/11 attacks and naturally based Katrina disaster, the bombing of Hiroshima was instigated on American prerogative in an effort to put a stop to WWII and therefore save countless lives. Harry S. Truman was faced with the hardest decision a president has ever had to make: force Japan to surrender unconditionally, or suffer hundreds of thousands more American casualties by allowing the war to continue. Finally, at 8:15 A.M. on August 6th, 1945, the decision had been made, and the United States dropped an A-bomb on the heart of Hiroshima. Most if not all people within a two-kilometer radius were instantly vaporized while the city had become leveled and shrouded in atomic fire.

Overall, around 140,000 were killed or died in the following months, either by burn damage or radiation poisoning. Yet as much of a stain on our history as Hiroshima is, it was necessary to end a war that claimed, and would continue to claim, millions of lives. In fact, the total amount of prevented casualties is roughly as high as 1,237,980, not counting for conservative estimates (Vespa, 2016).

The argument as to whether the bombing of Hiroshima was morally and ethically justifiable remains unresolved, and like other moral grey areas, there will never be a single answer that everyone agrees with. One thing is for certain: it was preferable to the alternative.

Final Word

9/11, Hurricane Katrina and Hiroshima are evidence of how all life is a double helix of good and bad; that all bad has to lead into good and vice versa. I’ve found this way of thinking incredibly helpful not because it promotes positive thinking, but because it promotes critical thinking. It allows you to get creative and actually use your brain to arrive at an accurate conclusion of the universe’s complex dynamics.

Anyone can curl up in a ball and cry when the world’s about to end, but to stand up and smile in the face of imminent annihilation? That takes character.

 

References

Davis, L. (2013, September 12). 9 Ways 9/11 Inadvertently Sparked Good In The World. Retrieved September 09, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/9-ways-911-inadvertently-_n_3909148.html

 

Rose, S. (2013, November 11). Since 9/11, Racism and Islamophobia Remain Intertwined. Retrieved September 09, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/steve-rose/911-racism-islamophobia_b_3908411.html

 

Vespa, M. (2016, May 27). Yes, Dropping Atomic Bombs On Japan Was A Good Thing. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/27/no-america-dropping-atomic-bombs-on-japan-was-a-good-thing-n2161273

 

Williams, J. (2010, August 27). Even Katrina Has a Silver Lining | Fox News. Retrieved September 09, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/27/juan-williams-katrina-brookings-new-orleans-gulf-coast-black-poverty-pew-poll.html

 

Zimmerman, K. A. (2015, August 27). Hurricane Katrina: Facts, Damage & Aftermath. Retrieved September 09, 2016, from http://www.livescience.com/22522-hurricane-katrina-facts.html