#and those of you saying it’s anti-men are hypocrites and kind of proving the movie’s point. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emma-what-son · 3 years

Text

(Echee post) Emma Watson criticises 'dangerously unhealthy' pressure on young women

Posted on March 30 2014

From theguardian.com March 2014 Emma Watson has criticised the "dangerously unhealthy" image projected by the fashion industry and said the pressure to look perfect has taken its toll on her. The actor has also described her doomed attempts to merge into the background as a student at an American university, where she found herself being trailed everywhere by British photographers. After the recent New York premiere of Noah, she tweeted a photograph of the array of cosmetics – and a guardian angel pin – that she said were essential aids to her flawless appearance, and another of herself in a backless dress captioned: "I did NOT wake up like this." The actress said she is better at taking criticism these days than she once was. "As a younger woman, that pressure got me down, but I've made my peace with it. With airbrushing and digital manipulation, fashion can project an unobtainable image that's dangerously unhealthy. I'm excited about the ageing process. I'm more interested in women who aren't perfect. They're more compelling." Watson became famous playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies and has been constantly in work since. She is about to start filming a thriller, Regression, by Alejandro Amenábar and is also trying to complete her degree at Brown University, Rhode Island. She enrolled in 2009 for what would have been a four year course, but has taken several breaks for film work, and spent a year studying at Oxford. "After Harry Potter, all that mattered was university," she said, in an interview with the Sunday Times. "It wasn't always easy to break down barriers, as having men from the British press following me with cameras didn't help my mission to integrate. The American press, by contrast, "afforded me so much privacy", but her fellow students recognised her at once. "On the first day, I walked into the canteen and everyone went completely silent and turned around to look at me. I had to say to myself 'it's OK, you can do this'. You just have to take a deep breath and gather your courage."

GUARDIAN COMMENTERS SAY: So something like this Burberry campaign she did a few years ago? Hypocrisy at its finest. She flaunts with the fashion industry and enjoys its perks all the time, but hops on the 'female beauty' bandwagon and enjoys a moan when it suits her. I'd find her socially conscientious pleas convincing if she hadn't profited in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) from the big, bad, evil fashion/beauty industry. A few years ago, Emma Watson appeared in high-profile advertising companies for posh Paris fashion house L'ancome. I'm guessing she was handsomely remunerated for her 'work'. Certainly she was not forced into letting her photo shopped image be used to market expensive cosmetics and perfumes. Did she only discover how 'oppressive' the fashion industry is when L'ancome cancelled her lucrative contract? Ms Watson is essentially a third-rate actress, and her pronouncements on large and complex issues, such as the pressures on women, are so idiotically vapid that one is brought to conclude that she really can have very little aptitude for higher education. I mean, her comments are hardly indicative of an educated person, or even of a moderately literate or intelligent person. By the way, I understand that she spent a year at Oxford as a visiting and/or exchange student while enrolled at Brown. How come? She is a British national, and so by rights she should not have gone to Oxford on a visiting/exchange student programme, irrespective of whether she happens a student at an American university. If I am wrong about this, then I should like to have some explanation as to her status at Oxford, and how she came by it. Otherwise, I suppose that one might be forgiven for thinking that it is yet another case of a once respectable academic institutions bowing down before the false idols of celebrity and money. (This is quite apart from the fact that all that one has read about her since she began life as a student concerns her acting career, her modeling and her various boyfriends.) SOME COMMENTS FROM THE DM ARTICLE Notice how it's always people who are very aware of how attractive they are that babble on about how it's okay to have physical blemishes? I'd like to see an ugly person say the same thing. Only someone young, beautiful and with her whole life before her can say that, and mean it. Sometimes, her comments maKe her more stupid. Get lost and Wingardium Leviosa. What a daft thing to say. But, then again, this is coming from someone who can't seem to finish uni. I feel like I've aged about 10 years reading this article. Annoying girl. Not only annoying, but also pretentious and disingenuous. ^None of this is my words. It from commentators from two sites emma-what-son posted many more so check out her page

Here's what I think As for what she is saying about Brown it's a complete 180 from how she described it before 2013. In 2013 she started to elude to the fact it was not as great as she made it out to be. She gushed how wonderful her experiences had been to so many magazines. Now I think she's looking for pity and to have excuses why she never stayed at Brown. She preached how she was staying put. I am so fucking tired of having to post quote after quote proving my point with this when she lies time after time. She is not honest! What the truth is doesn't matter because she always lying. It's a constant thing with her. As for the pressures on women she is really a piece of work. The guardian commenters summed it up nicely. She had no problem attaching herself to Burberry and Lancôme. She's had no problem giving them praise and talking about fashion and make-up in just about every interview. That part where she talked about photo shopping and air brushing. Just wow! Did she see the Wonderland magazine she edited? Some photos it didn't even look like her. She'll continue allowing her image to be manipulated no matter what. She thinks she’s aging? She still looks 15 without all the make-up and photo shopping. Last year she was stopped at JFK because they thought she was a unaccompanied minor. Did you know one of the product she pushed when modeling for Lancôme was an anti-age cream? That's the dumbest comment in her entire interview. But really she's said this kind of stuff the last three years and most notably in 2011 where she had a various quotes about body image and being comfortable in your skin. I wont bore you with those quotes since I have before. She gets lauded for those comments and people place her in role model status but when you closely look at it they were just words that meant nothing at the time other than to make people think, “Emma is so anti-Hollywood!! She’s a role model for women and young girls” but meanwhile she never believed in any of it in the first place. At the time she said those things she was at a more healthier weight than she ever was. In 2011 you can tell she either stopped working out or ate more. I thought she looked her best then. Now she’s back to stick thin and even surpassed it a way IMO is unhealthy. She sending a bad message to women. From standard.co.uk July 2011, “She sees modeling as an extension of acting, in fact - just playing a role - but is conflicted about its demands. “I think the pressure the media and the fashion industry put on women to look a certain way is pretty intense. There’s a certain tyranny to trying to achieve that kind of beauty. I don’t know, I’m maybe not the best person to speak about this because I obviously completely adhere to it,” she laughs nervously. “ ^She really needs to start taking her own advice and quit being a judgmental hypocrite. Not just with this topic but everything she tends to speak out against that she does it herself. Recently she tweeted a photo of all this make-up and I posted this on my tumblr days ago

^Same phone in this photo is what they're using in the bottom photo that I also posted on tumblr She said something else recently (Sunday Times interview) that is just typical Emma. I covered this a few times. From emmawatsonbelgium.blogspot.be March 2014, "For someone who has starred in eight blockbuster movies and is worth an estimated £30m, she is endearingly modest about how green she felt leaving Harry Potter behind in 2011. Emerging from that magical machine was “really intimidating”, she says. “I’d done two tiny plays when I was, like, six and eight, but I wasn’t driven to act. I wasn’t doing Oscar acceptance speeches into a hairbrush." Yeah it might have no been a hairbrush but who knows she could be lying about that. She'd practice her speeches in mirrors. From telegraph.co.uk July 2007, "Pauline is utterly obsessed with being an actress and I was just like that when I was younger. I dreamt of it. I practised speeches in front of mirrors. Whenever there was a part at school, I went for it. I was probably a bit of a show-off in the sense that any chance to get up and be seen, I did it. I was such a drama queen. I used to wail and moan and cry, and little things were blown up into being big things. I don't know how my parents stood it, really. I've grown up a bit. I've had to. I actually really want to be an actress, a proper actress who makes it her career. I'm always expecting to be found out and I thought, If I'm no good, now is the time to find out." She really wants people to think she all of a sudden wants to act. What I think is she is really trying to distance herself from her lack luster post Potter career by making it out like she now wants to act and that’s why she has no lead roles because her resume does not equal her hype. The last few years she’s separated herself from “always wanted to be an actress” to “I was not sure”. She’s being disingenuous as usual and people believe it. Plus she said she did modeling so directors and producers would look at her differently so that's why she used Burberry and Lancôme. And she did a course at RADA in 2008 so if she was not sure or didn't want to than why did she do these things? One more thing from the Sunday Times interview From emmawatsonbelgium.blogspot.be March 2014, "It’s about as close as she’ll get to revealing anything about her newest relationship, with Matt Janney, rugby hunk and Oxford’s most eligible bachelor. “I can’t comment on it, I’m sorry,” she says, suddenly jumping up and hastily bundling her things back into her bag, which has exploded across the sofa beside her. “I’m trying to keep my private life sacred, although I don’t want to lock myself up and never go out. So I guard it, because I don’t date people who are famous, and I don’t think it’s fair that, all of a sudden, intimate details of their personal life are public as a direct result of me. I find that so uncomfortable, and I wish there was a way I could protect those people, but it’s not in my control.” When I suggest her boyfriends are consenting adults, she looks worried. “But you don’t choose who to love, who you have feelings for, do you?” She throws her phone into her bag and retreats home to pack, as she’s flying to LA. Just a normal girl, then, off to present an Oscar."

So she can go to international magazines and complain she can't find a man or that men are intimidated by her? She had in the past before Will Adamowicz. It was in almost every one of her interviews for a few years. So she can use Matt Janney (this new guy) on a beach in a bikini PDA session as a publicity stunt to cover up her ex boyfriend being caught rolling coke bombs and also use him to product place an iPhone in Madrid but she wants to keep it private? And she doesn't date famous guys? What about Johnny Simmons (Young Neil) and George Craig (Front man for rock group One Night Only)? If you can Google their name and you see them in movies or music videos, they're famous.

#echee #echee post

2 notes · View notes

scrawnydutchman · 6 years

Text

Paradise P.D: Animated Series Review

I’ve reviewed a lot of animated - and live action - shows and movies on my blog. Nearly everything I’ve felt the need to comment on has been seen in a positive light. I don’t shy away from harsh criticism nor do I actively avoid notably poor content; it just so happens that the things I’m most interested in discussing are things I have mainly positive comments on. Paradise PD has come along to break the mold. The genuine disgust I have for this series is a first for me. I hate this show. This is quite possibly the worst show I’ve ever given a complete watch. The characters are either heinously cruel or insultingly generic. The premise is cookie cutter and derivative as hell. The humor is forced, predictable and just depressing more often than funny. The animation . . . . oh God, the animation. I’ve had non flavored rice cakes with more taste than this show. It’s like anti-creativity. Even as I’m typing this Ii’m getting riled up just thinking about it again. Alright, let me calm down. Let’s break this show down piece by piece, starting with the writing.

Writing

*ugh, the animation in these gifs is terrible. I’ll get to it when I get to it.*

Synopsis: Kevin Crawford is an aspiring young police officer who is determined to prove himself to his dad, Chief Randall Crawford of the Paradise PD. Chief Crawford has a hard time trusting his son because of a firearms accident that occurred when Kevin was very young (the less details you know about that the better) but his ex wife mayor Karen Crawford forces Randall to bring Kevin into the department anyway. Kevin thus joins a motley crew of . . .ahem . . . “”””hilarious””””” cops including Gina; the badass uber violent super cop who’s both the sex appeal of the show and has a fetish for morbidly obese men (yes, seriously), Gerald Fitzgerald; the Cleveland Brown of this show who’s basically just a well mannered token black guy, Dusty Marlow; the morbidly obese innocent cop whom Gina constantly harasses sexually (and yet when male characters harass her on the show she threatens to beaten them for pervy comments, so . . . hypocrite), Stanley Hopson; an elderly officer whose whole schtick is being senile and doing gross shit . . and finally Brian Griffin-I mean Bullet; the canine unit who’s also a drug addict . . . and being a drug addict is basically his whole shtick. They get into a bunch of wacky shenanigans, a lot of gross stuff ensues, yadda yadda yadda

So admittedly, this isn’t a bad premise for a show of this style. If Brooklyn 99 has proven anything it’s that a police department is a great and refreshing setting for a sitcom with tons of potential for jokes as well as diverse characters having great chemistry with each other. Plus it’s an archetype I don’t see very much of (I’d like to point out that I consider this different from the “buddy cop” archetype which is literally everywhere, because rather than focus on two cops it involves an entire precinct). This show is kind of like if Seth Macfarlane made a Family Guy spinoff centered around Joe Swanson (except that sounds a million times more amazing). But while Paradise PD sounds like a good concept for a show on paper, it’s execution is poorer than poor. Ironically for being such an off-the-beaten-path premise for a sitcom the show doesn’t take very much advantage of it. It’s not like the case in every episode is particularly interesting and it’s certainly not like Archer or Brooklyn 99 where the humor comes from the mundane nature of the job that nobody really talks about (filing a lot of paper work and performing basic job duties). Instead it’s premises about banging police cars that have AIs that behave like abusive girlfriends . . .which is a premise we’ve seen before. Or it’s about a father not understanding his child’s hobbies . . .which is a premise we’ve seen before. Or it’s about a fighter being overly confident in the ring only for his cohorts to discover he’s rigged to lose in the next fight . . . which is a premise we’ve seen before. Here lies the biggest problem of this show: it’s so rinse and repeat it’s insulting. For every episode this series has at the moment I guarantee the Simpson’s has done it and has done it better. Or Bob’s Burgers has done it. Or Archer has done it. Or Brooklyn 99 has done it. Hell, Family Guy and American Dad are the most comparable shows to this besides Brickleberry for obvious reasons and as much as I have distaste for those shows even they do these recycled premises more justice than Paradise PD does. Basically the only thing giving this show a real identity is it’s intense gross out visuals which, given this shows shockingly limited animation style, gets stale very quickly. But what is Paradise PD missing that all those shows have in common (besides maybe Family Guy/American Dad)? The answer of course is likable characters.

Characters

*it’s worth mentioning that the intro is the only bit of decent animation this show has. In fact it’s deceivingly good. Be patient . . . I’m getting there.*

If the synopsis I gave at the beginning is any indication it’s that every character suffers from one of two problems; they’re either intensely unlikable or are bland overly used archetypes . . . sometimes both. Gerald Fitzgerald, Dusty Harlow, Stanley Hopson and Bullet are all archetypes you can find in every animated sitcom ever made. It’s the token black guy, the morbidly obese dumbass, the senile old man and the drug addict/self centered misogynist. They all have one joke and one joke only dedicated to each of them. They are walking talking punchlines. So is every character in this show, though everyone else to a lesser extent. Gina is my favorite because her backstory episode is the only one where I felt even a little bit intrigued about how one of these assholes came to be. Our leading man Kevin is a bland standin. He’s just an overly naive, wide eyed kid with a dream. He’s an empty husk for literally any kind of viewer to step in (except for women when it comes to the love interest stuff). The chief is an angry, pompous asshole. In fact every character is just a horrible human being. Even characters that are either overly innocent or are meant to be good natured like Kevin or Dusty are constantly selfish or arrogant in some way. I get that that’s just the way the show is written comedically and in truth all comedy is rooted in the flawed. It’s why a lot of sitcom scenarios are written around characters acting selfishly or stupidly. But there’s being flawed and then there’s . . . being relentlessly cruel. It makes it hard to root for any of these characters in the end, especially since the show also occasionally tries to have a moral center and because . . .well . . . y’know . . . everyone is bland as shit.

Cast Performance

So this is by far the best aspect of the show and the number one thing it has going for it. Why? Because the show has a cast that’s . . . depressingly a bunch of all stars. Tom Kenny, Spongebob himself, voices the chief and he does a great angry authoritative father. Grey Griffin, the actress behind such favorites as Daphne from Scooby Doo, Frankie from Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends, Vicki from Fairly Odd Parents and Azula from Avatar: The Last Airbender, is the mayor and also turns in a great performance for what she has to portray. Not to mention the occasional guest like John Dimaggio and Tara Strong. If you’re any fan of voice acting chances are you’ll find a favorite of yours in this cast if not a handful of them. I say this is depressing because all of these people could do so much better. I get it, a paycheck is a paycheck, but . . . . imagine the immensely creative and stunning projects they could have been a part of instead. If a contract with Netflix is what you want, hit up Alex Hirsch! He’s signed on with them now and I bet he’s got something worthwhile! There’s not a whole lot to say about the rest of the performances, mainly because again, it’s hard to care about any of these characters.

Visuals (Animation, Design, Composition, Visual Storytelling, ETC.)

sigh . . . .okay . . . let’s talk about the animation. Before I go into it I just want to be real and sentimental for a second. I’m an animator. I just recently broke into the industry by working with Copernicus Studios . . . and it’s been nothing but a sincere pleasure. I’ve learned more about animation and Toon Boom in 4 months than I ever learned in 4 years of freelancing. It put into perspective just how much thought and effort goes into even the most minimal of shows. It’s a popular trend to shit on professionally animated content for looking such a way or moving in such a way but if those people only knew the countless hours and passion that goes into even just a couple of seconds of footage they’d never talk shit about these shows ever again. Not only that, but I’m an admin for an animation study group on Facebook with thousands of members from all over the world. Animators from every country and every skill level share their work for constructive feedback. Through this I’ve met many people who work in the industry . . .including someone who worked on Paradise PD. And I know them to be among the most skilled and masterful animators on the page. For all of these reasons, I will NEVER call animators lazy or unskilled if they produced a show like this. It’s typically the result of a certain type of direction or method of moving the production pipeline along. I have no doubt on my mind that every animator who worked on this show is wonderfully skilled and will do well in their careers going forward.

But this show does not demonstrate that. Far from it. This show goes out of it’s way to be lazy. It cuts so many corners they’ve made a perfect circle of hell. Just take a look at most of the gifs I’ve posted in this review. Notice the popping of proportions and lines in moving pieces. Notice certain features like noses or eyes that move around for no damn reason at all. Look at features like eyebrows where there’s no easing or seamless transition or any basic understanding of the 12 principles of animation aside from perhaps arcs. Just watch a couple of seconds of this show and count how little frames are in every motion. If you told me this show was made in Go! Animate I would believe you. This makes Family Guy look like Studio Ghibli. Maybe this show could have been more pleasant to look at if it had vouched for motion keyframes instead of what appears to be the occasional stop motion keyframe (users of Toon Boom or Flash will know what I mean) but even then there’s nothing to look at really. Add to that the eyesore of a colour scheme, the uninspired character designs that if I put them in silhouette you would not be able to tell what show it’s from, the absolutely barebones backgrounds that look like early 2000s Newgrounds cartoon sets and the unimaginitive shot composition that consists almost entirely of wide shots and medium wide shots and you have what can hardly even be defined as animation by mainstream televisions standards. The last show I reviewed was Matt Groening’s Disenchantment and while I had my issues with that shows animation, at least they were only errors a trained eye could see in a show that was otherwise appealing. Paradise PD is just a tragedy. The only positive comment I can make about the animation is that the FX department did a great job animating the blood and the boogers and any type of nasty body liquid . . . .and I am depressed that that is my one positive comment.

Audio (Soundtrack, Sound Mixing, Sound FX, ETC.)

*In case you thought I was joking about one of the episode summaries I gave earlier*

Like most of the stuff I review, the audio isn’t particularly notable in this show. There’s no memorable soundtracks to speak of. The sound mixing is fine. That’s really all there is to say. I’ll be honest; I’ll talk about remarkable soundtracks in this section or clever/bad sound mixing when I can, but I mainly just include this section so I can score what i’m reviewing in a way that adds to a 10.

Conclusion

Paradise PD is the worst show I have ever given a review for and quite possible the worst show I’ve ever made an effort to sit down and watch. Almost nothing is redeemable about it. It’s the lowest common denominator for animation and it unsuccessfully trades any hint of originality for unfunny shock humor. It fails not because of missteps, but because of a refusal to make the necessary steps in the first place.

Writing - 0.5/2- Below Average

Characters - 0.5/2- Below Average

Cast Performance - 1.5/2 - Above Average

Visuals - 0.5/2 - Below Average

Audio - 1/2 - Average

4 out of 10 - My most hated show thus far.

#netlfix #netflix original #Paradise PD #Paradise P.D #Cartoons #Animation #2D Animation #Review #Film Review #TV review #brickleberry #Scrawnydutchman

14 notes · View notes

kidsviral-blog · 6 years

Text

Destroying Jim Carrey with simple question: ‘Will you denounce “Kick Ass 2″?’

New Post has been published on https://kidsviral.info/destroying-jim-carrey-with-simple-question-will-you-denounce-kick-ass-2/

Destroying Jim Carrey with simple question: ‘Will you denounce “Kick Ass 2″?’

http://twitter.com/#!/DLoesch/status/316039714597662720

If you haven’t been paying attention to the epic fact-whoopin @dloesch has been putting on the Dumb & Dumber star you are missing out!

— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 25, 2013

Truth. As we reported, actor Jim Carrey continues to expose himself as an hypocritical gun control nut. Oh, and a jackass. He took to Twitter yesterday to use tragedies to promote himself by hawking the release of his song, “Cold Dead Hand.” He did so by calling gun owners “heartless motherf*ckers.” Ah, the tolerance! Twitter quickly reacted, and a hilarious video exposing Carrey’s hypocrisy was created: Must watch.

Fierce fighter Dana Loesch destroyed Carrey with a simple question: Will he denounce his violence-glorifying movie “Kick Ass 2″?

My only question to @jimcarrey is on consistency: will u, will u not denounce new film “Kick Ass 2″ for glorifying gun use, violence?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

The craven Carrey bravely ran away while tossing straw men.

No 1 is answering my suggestion of developing non-lethal self-defense! I guess that wouldn’t satisfy our national ad… say.ly/PVq5rfc

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 24, 2013

Gun folks are afraid that control won’t stop with large magazines. Their nervousness is far less important than the … say.ly/mJR5rfH

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 24, 2013

@dloesch Not at all. I’m suggesting compassionate compromise. A revolutionary concept, i know. ;^}

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 24, 2013

I’d like to respond to all the conservative bundits out there personally but I’m far too busy NOT stumping for the g… say.ly/uaP5rh8

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 24, 2013

Over a million ppl have been killed by guns in the US since John Lennon was shot. Look no further than your own back… say.ly/AFC5rpn

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 25, 2013

The important question is “Do we possess guns in America or do guns possess us?”say.ly/VPr5rpR

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 25, 2013

@dloesch So that means ppl need a hundred bullet magazine? Well,u don’t make sense but you cause confusion and that’s all u really want! ;^}

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 25, 2013

Confusion? Her question was quite simple, Mr. Carrey. She even kindly offered some teachable moments for you. Is reading as hard for you as reality appears to be?

Loesch and other happy warriors, including the always awesome actor Nick Searcy, destroyed Carrey with reason.

#answerthequestionjim MT @jchristensen73 I’m eagerly awaiting @jimcarrey to answer @dloesch questionDoes he have the courage??

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

. @jimcarrey Please educate yourself. Police have no obligation to protect your life. See Castle Rock v Gonzales.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

Average response time for 911 call exceeds 12 minutes. I’m unwilling to allow @jimcarrey play roulette with my family’s safety in that span.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

Must be easy to MySpace rant with no ref to court cases, demanding disarmament when you have your own armed bodyguard, @jimcarrey .

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

Don’t tell @jimcarrey that Newtown parents voted for armed police in their schools. He might start calling them “m*therf*ckers,” too.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

Sad because I really liked @jimcarrey growing up. I remember his Vera impression. Now he insults fans? Lame.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

Is @jimcarrey volunteering to pay for all of us to have bodyguards, too? Well, are you Jim?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

@jimcarrey Can you tell me what’s compassionate about making our bodies and children less safe than yours?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

Curious why certain people think their lives are more valuable than others. “Bodyguard! No problem! Too bad you can’t afford protection!”

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

@jimcarrey By your logic defending free speech is stumping for broadcast companies.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 24, 2013

Does @jimcarrey ‘s house have an “Armed Response” sign in front of it? Why does he not have a “Gun Free Zone” sign in front of it?

— nick searcy (@yesnicksearcy) March 25, 2013

Another question he won’t be answering.

.@jimcarrey bravely stands & says what 99% of the room he’s in agree with. Such courage! Until a maniac with a gun comes in that room.

— nick searcy (@yesnicksearcy) March 25, 2013

Bingo.

@jimcarrey @dloesch I notice you don’t deny having armed bodyguards, Mr. Carrey. How do you justify having armed bodyguards?

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) March 24, 2013

Protection for me, but not for thee.

.@jimcarrey Not a question of “need”, it’s a question of rights. Also, it only takes 3-4 seconds to cycle 3 standard 30rnd mags. ~ @dloesch

— Adam Baldwin (@adamsbaldwin) March 25, 2013

. @jimcarrey And 2.1m use them for defense annually, via law enforcement reports. So why do you omit that?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

And @jimcarrey , of those 2.1m defensive uses per year, 10% are women defending against sexual attack. And you want to render them helpless?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

I’d like to know why @jimcarrey ignores the fact that 2.1m defenses with firearms occur annually. Is “compromise” to ignore truth?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

I think @jimcarrey should lead by example. He should drop his armed bodyguards and denounce “Kick Ass 2.”

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

Will @jimcarrey put his money where his mouth is? He hates guns, so will he denounce their use and his film “Kick Ass 2?”

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

@jimcarrey Pls answer my question: Will u denounce ur film “Kick Ass 2″ because it glorifies violence & guns? Or is your talk here hollow?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

I’m sure @jimcarrey ‘s feelings on guns are new as there is no way he’d sign up for “Kick Ass 2″ feeling the way he does now, right?

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

Do paychecks for sequels involving guns justify this exception to your earlier remarks, @jimcarrey ? I’m curious.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

RT if you want @jimcarrey to answer question posed by @dloesch Will u denounce ur film “Kick Ass 2″ because it glorifies violence & guns?

— Kate Kurtz (@BunnysDaughter) March 25, 2013

RT @cnservativepunk: I would really like to see @jimcarrey respond to @dloesch comments as she makes very good points here.

— Sister Toldjah (@sistertoldjah) March 25, 2013

Who thinks @dloesch deserves an answer from @jimcarrey: will he be consistent & denounce his movie Kick Ass 2? Or is he talking just 2 talk?

— Rorschach (@Modern_Right) March 25, 2013

@jimcarrey,@dloeschdeserves an answer if you have the fortitude.

— Mike Young (@MikeYou34) March 25, 2013

@jimcarrey Please answer @dloesch‘s questions. We’re all waiting.

— MichelleInCal(@MichelleInCAL) March 25, 2013

@jimcarrey could you please let @dloesch and all of us know what type of gun you are brandishing here for profit? twitter.com/josepheach/sta…

— JoeySkins (@josepheach) March 25, 2013

And then the hashtag #AnswerTheQuestionJim was born.

After blasting culture and gun violence on Twitter, will @jimcarrey denounce his new film “Kick Ass 2″ for glorifying? #AnswerTheQuestionJim

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

#AnswerTheQuestionJim RT @suziewilliams: @dloesch @jimcarrey Simple question. You need to answer.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

.@jimcarrey This isn’t going away…You should #AnswerTheQuestionJim .@dloesch

— Topher Carlton (@TopherCarlton) March 25, 2013

. @jimcarrey rants about guns. Promotes his own gun violent film. @dloesch asks him to denounce it. Silence from him? #AnswerTheQuestionJim

— Sherry Lucas (@PorchPhilosophy) March 25, 2013

Still waiting for @jimcarrey to #AnswerTheQuestionJim if he’ll denounce new film in light of his anti-gun remarks.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 25, 2013

Call @piersmorgan for help: @jimcarrey is ignoring @dloesch. #AnswertheQuestionJim

— ★♥ Harriet Baldwin(@HarrietBaldwin) March 25, 2013

Liberal men have such a fear of conservative women.It’s hilarious.@dloesch @jimcarrey #AnswerTheQuestionJim

— Bethany Bowra (@BethanyBowra) March 25, 2013

It’s at times like this that people like @jimcarrey prove their anti-gun arguments have no substance.#AnswerTheQuestionJim @dloesch

— Bethany Bowra (@BethanyBowra) March 25, 2013

So @jimcarrey finally responds to @dloesch, and it’s a straw man argument. Enjoy your “blood money”, Hypocrite.

— ArcherFan1776 (@AiPolitics) March 25, 2013

If @jimcarrey has any kind of integrity he’ll answer @dloesch and explain why he gets to vilify gun users but gets to be protected by them.

— Brandon Morse (@CnservativePunk) March 25, 2013

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” ~Sigmund Freud *cough cough* @jimcarrey #answerthequestionjim

— Kemberlee Kaye (@red_red_head) March 25, 2013

“@laurenc_lux: What’s it like having your own armed security? #AnswerTheQuestionJim” @jimcarrey

— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 25, 2013

Hey remember when @jimcarreyexploited 9/11 with his “Go see The Majestic..It will make you feel better” Ad.. #AnswerTheQuestionJim

— S.M (@redsteeze) March 25, 2013

A pattern of gross exploitation for his own gain.

Tick-tock, tick-tock. #answerthequestionjim

— Eye on Politics (@EyeOnPolitics) March 25, 2013

I’m pretty sure @jimcarrey doesn’t want to debate, he wants to proselytize. #answerthequestionjim

— Brandon Morse (@CnservativePunk) March 25, 2013

Is this @jimcarrey ‘s solution for a women facing a rape assailant ? youtube.com/watch?v=io30s7… #AnswerTheQuestionJim

— Karen Martin #TGDN (@karmartin) March 25, 2013

Suck it up, ladies!

What’s it like in the 1% with a security detail, but criticizing the 99% that need their own protection? #AnswerTheQuestionJim

— Lauren Luxenburg (@LaurenC_Lux) March 25, 2013

That awkward moment when you’re a movie star passed your prime being called out for being a hypocrite. #AnswerTheQuestionJim

— Justen Charters (@JustenCharters) March 25, 2013

#AnswertheQuestionJim How can you take money for something you find so immoral? @chrisloesch @dloesch

— Mari (@LupeColon) March 25, 2013

It’s trending. “@chrisloesch: Use this hashtag to @jimcarrey until he answers @dloesch‘s question about his film. #AnswertheQuestionJim”

— Sara Marie Brenner (@saramarietweets) March 25, 2013

We’ve had enough of the hypocrisy and the intolerance coming from the Hollyweird Left.

One of the reasons I love twitter is that celebrities are finally having people that aren’t paid “yes” men reacting to their idiocy.

— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) March 25, 2013

The more I hear powerful people & celebrities (& a few whiny bloggers) poo-poo twitter as irrelevant, the more I know they’re scared of it.

— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) March 25, 2013

Indeed. And, Jim?

Thx 4 your input 2day.I don’t think i’ve ever felt so despised and so free at the same time. It’s been delightfully. ;^}

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 25, 2013

Answer the question. We aren’t going anywhere.

Update: He’s still avoiding, but is continuing to toss around straw men.

@jbird8 Newsflash jbird. Movies aren’t real. No classroom gets blown to bloody hell by a movie but your misdirection is noted. ;^]

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) March 25, 2013

Hollywood hypocrite: Video roasts gun control nut Jim Carrey over movie violence

Jim Carrey’s ‘Cold Dead Hand’: Hey, here’s a song for ‘heartless motherf*ckers unwilling to bend for the safety of our kids’; Update: Doubles down

Jim Carrey: Gun violence? That’s totally karma, bitter clingers

Jim Carrey: The lives of assault rifle owners aren’t really ‘worth protecting’

Ghouls: Jim Carrey wants to ‘revise’ Second Amendment; Other celebs politicize Empire State Building shooting

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2013/03/25/answerthequestionjim-will-gun-grabbing-hypocrite-jim-carrey-denounce-kick-ass-2-he-bravely-runs-away/

0 notes