Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :

Mary

  • ThumbnailEditor’s Note: Today’s guest post, from Jenny Splitter, is a good reminder to step out of your comfortable echo chamber and engage with people instead of lecturing at them. 

    ****

    A couple of weeks ago, I […]

    • A lot of honesty there. Us skeptics aren’t immune to confirmation bias. We’re people, and we make all the same social mistakes, leaps of logic, and unscientific assertions as everyone else.

      All we have is an intent to avoid doing so as a central tenet.

    • “All we have is an intent to avoid doing so as a central tenet.”

      YES! And thanks.

    • Hmm. My own take on the whole gluten thing is – OK, we know there is a clear genetic disorder that causes problems. Only… we are only **just now** looking at some oddities that may arise as a result of differences in gut bacteria, so… there *is* a possible vector for additional sensitivity problems, related to the same class of foods, and it thus could be from differences in something for which he have done almost jack all of any kind of real research on. That said… I very, very, very, much doubt that dang near every other person I talk to has a sensitivity problem, but, some days at least, it appears as though that comes close to the number of people trying to give me, or someone else, where I work, advice on how much better they feel, now that they became semi-obsessive over gluten.

      The only good thing about the whole mess is that eventually we are almost certainly going to be able to do targeted gene replacements, and its only going to be the gene-fearful equivalent of anti-vaxers who will still even need gluten free, and other similar things. The rest can just fix the bloody gene(s). So, in the long run, this is all just a bloody temporary irritant, I hope…

      • Your entire first paragraph could describe aspartame just as readily as gluten. The only real difference is that gluten sensitivity has been given credibility (in some cases by those trying to cash in on the fad) while aspartame sensitivity is relegated to the fringes of Natural News.

        It’s all about perspective.

      • The sensitivity might actually be FODMAPS.

        I know a lot of people who have gone gluten free to treat an inflammatory condition of some kind but that could be anything from a person with a diagnosis like Crohn’s to a person who has decided on their own that their pain is caused by inflammation.

    • I love the way that article starts with a leap straight from “we don’t currently have any evidence” to “it is conclusively proved” without any intervening evidence. Then proceeds to talk about skeptics who get their logic wrong.

      But that’s of a piece with a rattle-off-the-usual dismissal of something that the skeptic has decided is annoyingly irrational and therefore beneath their attention. Yes, they make valid points about common fallacies, but they don’t link those to the actual article very well. Or maybe that’s just me writing off what evidence they have based on them being so horribly wrong in their starting premise.

    • What I don’t understand is, why do people even care so much about what other people have chosen for their diets? You don’t actually need gluten to have a healthy diet, so if someone wants to do without it, so what? I think it’s fair enough to point out that gluten sensitivity may not be a thing, but if the person wants to be gluten-free anyway, then … Oh well? And in fact, someone pointed out to me recently that the rise in gluten-free dieters has led to a rise in gluten-free products and gluten-free menu items in restaurants, which is fantastic for people who have celiac disease. People who in the recent past had a hard time finding things they could without destroying their innards, and forget about eating socially — now have a lot more options, which I think is pretty cool. If some of the people popularizing this way of eating don’t actually need to eat that way, I find it hard to care too much.

      • Why should we be okay with psuedoscience? It’s the same mentality that promotes anti-vaxx rhetoric and belief. To allow one form of psuedoscience because it’s “not a big deal” (says whom? and why?) is not okay. It just helps promote yet more anti-intellectualism and lazy thinking.

        Accurate science is necessary, not optional.

  • New York Attorney General Targets Supplements at Major Retailers – “The authorities said they had conducted tests on top-selling store brands of herbal supplements at four national retailers — GNC, Target, […]

    • Ingredients: anything at all*

      *this statement not evaluated by the FDA.

    • I know some who works in as quality control for one of the supplement manufacturers. They do indeed do testing and follow guidelines to make sure they’re not putting allergens into the supplements and that they do contain what they’re supposed to. The powdered rice and sand are to make the material go through the machines more smoothly. She said the New York lab making these claims is using a new, unvalidated testing method.

      • Care to cite your sources, rather than relay third hand knowledge? Thanks.

        (“She said” and “I know some one” doesn’t really cut it.)

  • I never get out and walk because by the time I have free time, it’s dark!

  • Here’s what Anita Sarkeesian’s harassers do with the rest of their Twitter time – “As it turns out, some of the most direct threats come from throwaway accounts, or ones that have been suspended. But some of […]

    • “real grievances about issues such as bias in family courts”

      I thought I read recently that this was a myth, that women do not really have an advantage in family court. (Unfortunately I cannot find the link to this information.)

      • Economically the stats are ironclad — women come out worse in the average divorce. The man’s standard of living rises, the woman’s falls. Hard cold fact, on average.

    • Well…Anti-vaxxers, rather than being Marin-county sandal-wearers, turn out to be: misinformed, credulous, lacking in critical thinking skills, at least on the fringe of conspiracy-mindedness.

      In other words they arrive at their position just about the way most Americans derive all their political/moral/scientific positions. All floating about in bubbles tailored to their enthusiasms and fears.

    • So what is the difference between the homemade tDCS devices and the laboratory versions?

      Also, why would would someone interested in stimulating their brain with an experimental homemade device be dissuaded by the claims that it might cause temporary blindness?

    • Just one note for the Mother Jones article: SJW began as a way to describe somewhat naïve middle-to-upper-class white allies who were ultimately useless because they were busy turning activism into a competition (among other, ah, issues, e.g. thinking the world is America, showing contempt for IRL activists, tendency to language-police).

      Racists and sexists then turned it into a term for normal people, so now we need another term to describe naïve and ultimately useless middle-to-upper-class white allies who think activism is some sort of competition. Which they will then use as a term for normal people. And we’ll need another term. Which they will then use as a term for normal people. And we’ll need another term.

      Oh, while this is Radio Free Europe (and therefore propaganda, but at least it admits to it), this got in my Facebook feed. Missionary stew, anyone?

    • I’ve known that about depression and walking for most of my adult life. It’s still really hard to get out and walk.

  • Gwyneth Paltrow says steam your vagina, an OB/GYN says don’t – “On today’s episode of ask the experts we pit the gynecologic advice of Gwyneth Paltrow, a consciously uncoupled actress and self-professed […]

  • I agree, it just sounds like an oily black coffee. But then again I do like my cream and sugar.

  • Thanks for linking to that! My original thought was that the language of the article was weird, but it *was* on the Smithsonian website, so I was like, maybe because I’m not an evolutionary biologist I’m misunderstanding this? I should listen to my gut more often. :)

  • ThumbnailEditor’s Note: Check out Amy’s other pieces on what being intersexed is all about. Today’s post is about the different ways in which being intersexed has been featured in the media. 

    *****

    Last summer at […]

  • Here’s How The Anti-Abortion Movement Plans To Modernize Its Approach – “Speaker after speaker talked about reclaiming the language and co-opting the label of feminism for their efforts. In doing that, they […]

    • Hmm, interesting. All this time I thought evolution wasn’t directional, now the evolutionary biologists are talking about it reversing and being undone. Something seems to be poorly worded.

      • I completely agree!

        • I was shocked when the article just suddenly ended without even mentioning possible alternative explanations. It could be that the bone was lost in most two-legged dinosaurs, but not in the particular line that led to birds. It could be the bone was not actually lost, but being small, it didn’t fossilize well in the relatively few specimens of dinosaurs in the line to birds. Or it could be that the bone is present in dinosaur embryos (and is somehow functional in them*) and reappeared in adult birds as the result of a mutation in the genes regulating growth rather than in the genes regulating structure (which are kind of the same and deeply interact with each other, so I’m not sure that’s a meaningful distinction.) Finally, the bone in birds could be an example of convergent evolution, which the article rejects without explaining why.

          I would have expected the Smithsonian to be better (and more nuanced) than this; maybe the article was cut down from a much fuller treatment (but why would space limitations apply to an online article?)

          Also, in general I would hope that the comments on an article like this at a site like the Smithsonian Magazine would explicate these issues, but they’ve been hijacked by a bunch of creationists making off-topic, baseless assertions, and the people who might know something have spent all there energy refuting the trolls. Where is an evolutionary biologist when we need one?

          [*] If the bone provided no survival benefit while still existing, I doubt it would be preserved in a functional form for very long, because random mutations in it would be neutral from a survival standpoint. Just like the gill arches in embryonic mammals; if they were somehow preserved into an adult mammal, they would not result in the adult having functional gills, too much else has gone missing or been re-purposed to some other essential function (which would probably kill the adult mammal long before it became an adult.) I found a very interesting-seeming artical about gill slits that I haven’t had time to read yet; tomorrow everything is going to be shut down by a blizzard, so maybe I’ll get to catch up on my reading…

          • Pharyngula wrote a blog addressing that article

            Death to Dollo’s Law!

            • Thanks for linking to that! My original thought was that the language of the article was weird, but it *was* on the Smithsonian website, so I was like, maybe because I’m not an evolutionary biologist I’m misunderstanding this? I should listen to my gut more often. :)

    • GNDR 322: “Female Trouble”

    • The flip side of the Gizmodo article is “But why does it work for Asprey?” Steve Magness digs in and concludes: it’s probably the drugs.

    • I tried that buttered coffee, it is one of the vilest things I’ve ever tasted. I felt physically ill after I drank less than a half cup and if I drank it on a regular basis I assure you I would lose weight if only because of the nausea.

      • I agree, it just sounds like an oily black coffee. But then again I do like my cream and sugar.

    • The Gamergate article seems fine. I don’t see a pro-gamergate slant on it at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if things got heated enough that some Feminists got banned, but I don’t think they’re leaning in the direction of Pro-Gamergate at all.

      Also, I kind of just assume that some portion of Feminists are 4chan sock puppets. That’s the kind of thing they do.

  • Mary commented on the post, Kavin is a Skepchick Now, on the site Skepchick 3 years, 5 months ago

    I just subscribe to the RSS feed. Much easier to stay on top of recent posts that way! :)

  • I agree, the labeling is misleading. Even if it’s voluntary, it’s a perceived advantage and companies will do anything to make a profit.

  • How Your Food Gets The ‘Non-GMO’ Label – “To receive the label, a product has to be certified as containing ingredients with less than 1 percent genetic modification. Westgate says that’s a realistic standard, […]

    • Is it just me, or is “backslide” a rather poor choice of words?

    • The ignorance on display in the comments of the GMO article is sickening.

      Having said that the voluntary label is the right approach, no public health concern=no government labeling mandate.

      • Indeed. It would actually cost less than a penny, similar to kosher/halal certification.

        • I’m not sure about that cost figure but the important part is it should be voluntary, just like kosher/halal as it is no more based on science.

      • My frustration with this whole thing though is that even “voluntary” is stupid, if the only criteria is, “is it GMO?”, and not what the hell that means, or was done to it. The best example I have seen, recently, was the article posted on potatoes – the non-GMO ones contain a carcinogenic chemical, which *may*, we don’t really know, contribute to cancer, and.. well, they also bruise. The GMO ones knock out both the genes that cause the effects of the bruising (dark/bad spots), but **also** the carcinogenic genes.

        So, these, “Oh my god, I need to eat healthy, and gluten, plus GMO, plus 50 other questionable things, lies, distortions, and/or just delusions, is what I need to do that!”, will automatically throw out the GMO potatoes, in favor of the bad ones. And, this is a good idea, why? Half the companies out there are already scared to death of the business they will lose, if they buy the GMO potatoes, and have rejected them. Its bad enough that the geneticist working on them may lose his shirt, and the product will never even see it to the market. And, we want people, voluntarily, or otherwise, slapping labels on these things, when companies are scared to death to sell them in the first place?

        Yeah.. if any of this labeling was being done sensibly, or for the right reasons, I wouldn’t mind. But.. no, its about isolating what a lot of confused, badly informed, people or just flat out kooks, have gotten scared silly by. Its not sensible, or even vaguely useful, at all, to have any do this.

        • I agree, the labeling is misleading. Even if it’s voluntary, it’s a perceived advantage and companies will do anything to make a profit.

          • Perhaps, but there’s a point for pragmatism. I know we can’t stop “no GMOs” labels, and for a certain type of mind “You’ve been eating this stuff for 20 years.” is not reassuring.

        • It might make more sense if they were labelled individually; like E numbers, you could have G numbers.

          Each with its own set of (marginal) pros and cons – like the potatoes you mentioned.

          But it makes no sense at all to lump them all together.

        • I agree it is unnecessary scientifically, but if it makes some people feel at ease and the burden of paying for it falls on those who actually use it I see no harm. If the “health risks” are not scientific a voluntary label is the best approach.

          Remember the “Real seal”? It was a marketing ploy by dairy manufacturers to get people to trust only those who had paid for the privilege to certify their dairy products as real (as opposed to imaginary? imitation), Kraft (who makes real cheese, however processed, despite their reputation) refused to play along striping it of some of its teeth, but it was a similar useless label. It still is I guess though I don’t know of anyone who still cares.

          It is a marketing ploy and will go over swimmingly at Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, I see no issue with it unless supermarkets decide to stop selling anything that is not labeled. I doubt that would happen outside of the snootiest retailers.

          • Except.. As I said, its already happening. This isn’t some case of, “Will I pick a few GMO products to have on my shelf, or go all non-GMO?”, its a case of public paranoia, where even otherwise sane people are listening to the nuts. Its… douching, or the vitamin craze, etc. Its something that has coopted most of the public imagination about what we **need** to be scared of, or just have to buy. Sure, those trends, eventually, falter and fail, replaced by saner information, but right now, the insane information is on the rise, and *every* business is jumping on it.

            When you have something like the potato thing.. where just having it “in” the market at all is dependent on companies having the courage to buy it, instead of listening to the detractors among its customers, its not going to matter if its a temporary trend. Sure, maybe some less stupid companies will buy this guys engineered spuds. But, so far… it sounds like its been a near 100% rejection. His “actually better” product has, for no reason, become the rubber tomato, from the lab in the second Gremlins movie, which, “That is the best news, a major airline is interested in it.” The joke being, obviously, that no one else in their right mind would touch the things.

            Yeah, I think maybe the real response needs to be a clear, public, campaign, to get all the non-nuts to understand that these things are not automatically dangerous. Maybe even making it absolutely clear that all the “safe” stuff has, often, literally *never* been tested at all? But something.

            A labeling system that includes pros and cons.. would be nice, maybe, but.. what would be the con in some cases, “Ignorant people think this will kill you.”? Yeah, I can see leaving the con off, and being accused of not telling anyone of the imaginary danger, as going over just about as well as stating that it **is** imaginary.

            • What you are saying is true perhaps in Europe but it is really just the crunchy granola crowd that is hung up on it here in the US.

              What I do find disheartening is the amount of otherwise rational skeptic that seem buy the whole “it hasn’t been tested” line of BS. Those same people would see right through Pascal’s wager but when it comes to “frankenfood” all of a sudden “but what if you’re wrong” trumps science.

              And it really isn’t a matter of public policy at this point anyway, if the industry decides there is a market for labeled products they will label products. That will not stop Monsanto, Arthur Daniels Midland, Dekalb, BASF, and the like from developing new varieties any more than a few anti-vaxxers (another issue that seems bigger then it is because of how loud the detractors are and the damage that can be caused by a small shift in consumer actions) stop new vaccines from being developed.

              At this point GMO is a foregone part of our future, the 7+ billion occupants of this tiny blue dot make it a certainty, any noises from the privileged few on the sidelines (and believe me, this is the privileged making all that noise) will, at best, simply shift the use of said products to the undeveloped world until non-GMO shortages cause a clamoring for them regardless of how modified they may be. I suspect however that this whole labeling brouhaha is merely a fad that will pass like clear beverages, low carb diets, and bacon in everything. Businesses, even those that consider themselves socially-conscious, will not stand idly by while potential money walks away.

            • Maybe.. But even in the US, people have done some pretty damn stupid things for “fad” purposes and ignorance, and there is always the damn Congress and Senate to get involved, so.. even if most of the US is sane about it, the government did pass the Snake Oil Protection Act, and create part of this vast “alternative medicine/food supplement” idiocy in the first place… You can always look forward to them, in some cases, creating a problem that wouldn’t have existed at all, without them, if enough of the fruit loops push the right buttons.

            • The whole point of this article is basically that the FDA is not getting involved, that is why there is a private company certifying these labels.

              As to the senate embracing alt med, it is appalling I agree. But least you think the entire congress is overrun by woo merchants let me tell you how that happened. Tom Harkin was a Democratic Representative turned Senator from Iowa who just retired, he was a very liberal legislator and pro-science (he was instrumental, for example, for getting funding for stem-cell research amid controversy) for the most part. He believed he had been “healed” of allergies by alt med and happened to be in the right place at the right time to push through creation of CAM boards and agencies by sweet talking his fellow congresscirtters and President Clinton. It’s snowballed to where it is today and Harkin is seen as a savior among woo-merchants, but it says more about the way legislature can be pushed through then the mindset of the congress.

              I would look to the recent testimony of Dr. Oz to see where the current congress is, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri drilled the quack TV doctor on his insistence on pushing “miracle” cures and Oz doesn’t fair well.

              With Harkin’s retirement CAM has lost their biggest cheerleader in the congress and I see a significant reduction in funding coming soon.

            • Well, I honestly don’t know how many alti med types are in congress, but it takes three to tango in this country, so regardless of the Senate decision to come up with the SOP act, to protect vitamin companies from having the FDA actually verify what is safe to take (the rest is just a nasty side effect), it had to pass congress **and** be signed off on by the President. At bare minimum, this made everyone involved clueless and gullible. Does it really matter if, on top of that, some of them where actually nuts?

        • Maybe GMO’s will start to take off when they are made to benefit the consumer more. Like if there was a GM potato that when boiled tasted like it had been roasted in goosefat yet had a real low glycemic index and was high in vitamins and minerals. I’d like to see that!

          • Or maybe a rice that produces vitamin A so as to prevent blindness…

            Oh wait, that already exists but it only benefits people in those nasty third-world countries. Never mind.

            • I was being flippant because we were talking in the context of the West. Are Indian farmers embracing GMO’s with enthusiasm then?

            • Oh, I know. I was adding to your flippancy.

              As for how successful golden rice is, I’d say it looks mixed. There are still the real concerns of how Monsanto and the like operate (although they are allowing royalty free use to any farmer making less then $10,000) and the possible effects on biodiversity, but with well-meaning but misguided opposition from Greenpeace among others, India and other countries are being pulled into the GMO=bad way of thinking.

              I personally find Greenpeace to be over reactionary on most subjects but in this instance their actions are unconscionable. Instead of addressing actual concerns (financial dependence, biodiversity, etc.) they are fomenting unfounded fear of the dreaded GMO. They have lost a lot of respect in my eyes.

    • “backslide |?bak?sl?d|
      verb ( past backslid;past participle backslid or archaic backslidden |-?slidn| ) [ no obj. ]
      relapse into bad ways or error”

      Wikipedia:
      Backsliding, also known as falling away,[1] is a term used within Christianity to describe a process by which an individual who has converted to Christianity reverts to pre-conversion habits and/or lapses or falls into sin, when a person turns from God to pursue their own desire.

      • But according to Merriam-Webster the second definition is : to revert to a worse condition – retrogress.

        Having never been religious this was the only definition I was aware of, you learn something new every day.

      • Lots of words have more than on meaning. Like this particular meaning that no one actually uses for this word. I’ve never heard it. Looks like I’m not the only one. IT’s fine.

    • See? This article actually makes sense. Unlike a lot of things I’ve seen about white Twitter activists trying to inject ‘nuance’ about Charlie Hebdo. (Read: Victim-blaming.)

      And always remember, white people hated Martin Luther King.

      Of course antivaxxers cluster. Bullshit spreads from one concerned parent to another, possibly more effectively than it does from concerned parent to very serious person to other concerned parents.

  • Not only that, the alcohol was listed as an “inactive ingredient”! Merely to preserve the precious homeopathic flower extracts. Ridiculous.

  • Haha, I know, I try not to be too smug because I have plenty of moments like that myself. But the part where the host was so convinced that the moon was a star still made me laugh :)

  • Thanks for posting that! That makes me feel a little better about the handout. Context is everything!

  • Is the Moon a Planet? QVC Asks, I Answer. – “The moon is NOT a planet! I believe it’s a star!” Actual quote from the QVC video. Read Phil Plait’s column and watch the video for laughs.
    Daily Show‘s Jessica […]

    • How is something that contains an actual drug (up to 13% by volume at that) considered homeopathic?

      This is just incorrectly labeled and it feeds into the misconceptions that the general public has about homeopathy, i.e. that it is actually medicine.

      Pathetic.

      • Not only that, the alcohol was listed as an “inactive ingredient”! Merely to preserve the precious homeopathic flower extracts. Ridiculous.

        • I think it’s because it’s not the allegedly active alleged ingredient. Remember, homeopathy involves pretending the entire 19th century didn’t happen, at least as far as medicine goes.

          Though, yeah, I get angry at those photos of people giving their pets liquor or blowing smoke in their pets’ faces. This is doing that at the corporate level.

    • I loved Phil Plait’s final thought: “So if you want to feel smug and superior about the TV hosts, hey, that’s your choice. But people in glass planets shouldn’t throw asteroids.” Mainly I love it because it kept my smugness in check.

      My love for Jessica Williams knows no bounds. I love everything she does. In contrast, there are few things I hate more than fetus dolls. As someone who has seen her fair share of fetuses at various weeks gestation, I can say with some authority that those dolls are bullshit. A better illustration of an intact 12 week fetus can be seen at Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/12weekfetus.asp

      • Haha, I know, I try not to be too smug because I have plenty of moments like that myself. But the part where the host was so convinced that the moon was a star still made me laugh :)

    • Looks like the sex hand out was not as it appeared at first glance, the teacher handed it out as a conversation starter about how attitudes have changed and had a poorly timed absence on the day the paper was distributed.

      The follow up story can be read here.

      • Thanks for posting that! That makes me feel a little better about the handout. Context is everything!

    • I think it’s listed as homeopathic because it’s supposed to be diluted with water. The whole thing started when my friend Yvette, AKA Science Babe posted a video of herself getting tipsy on the stuff. It was funny but made the necessary point :)

    • The Fort Laramie Treaty left half of South Dakota in Sioux hands. Basically everything west of the Missouri River, plus a little more. (And a small bit of North Dakota and Nebraska.) That’s about the size of South Korea.

      Meanwhile, still fighting alongside Custer, I see

      While the Church is planning to canonize Serra. (Yeah, I know, Pentecostals aren’t Catholic, but I couldn’t help but notice the irony.)

      Speaking of unscientific theories about what happened thousands of years ago, from the prestigious anthropological journal Duh! Quarterly, it turns out Kennewick Man really does have genetic affinities with Indians.

  • If a gay Mormon man marries a woman, divorce is likely, study finds – “The LDS couples profiled on TLC’s ‘My Husband Is Not Gay’ may find these statistics sobering: Marriages like theirs — same-sex attracted […]

  • ‘Manslamming’: A Verb, a Gerund – “Terms that put the “man” in “portmanteau” tend to catch on because they describe a behavior that men (usually) adopt unconsciously and that women (usually) find annoying or […]

    • I think the observations behind “manslamming” are interesting. I don’t know how coloured my recollections of past incidents are, but I cannot for the life of me ever recall being body checked by a female pedestrian. While such collisions for me are extremely rare, they do happen, and as best as I can recall, it’s always another man involved in those situations. It leads me to wonder how many times I’ve had the path ceded to me unconsciously by other pedestrians because I’ve been the six foot tall male walking the other way.

  • Anti-Vaxxers Are Idolizing the Amish, Inexplicably – “A viral pseudoscience article claims the Plain People never get sick because they don’t get vaccinated. Actually, members of the religious sect are prone to […]

    • Mary,

      Well, if they found Dracula’s Coffin on Mars, they might not have found life on another planet, but at least we’d know that other planets have the undead! Wa ha ha! >:)

    • Mary, the Bletchley Park podcast interviewed Benedict Cumberbatch and the director, prior to the release of this movie, it gives some interesting insights, like that they brought the entire cast to Bletchley, to get a feel for the history, and they did a small amount of filming at Bletchley. Benedict seemed very enthused about playing the role of Turing. They have amalgamated some of the characters for the purpose of brevity.
      I am going to see this movie tomorrow (Friday night Australian time), and will post my opinion after I get home.

    • And now Fox News is appropriating feminist memes. Lovely.

    • I saw The Imitation Game… a while ago, before Christmas, I think.
      It was good! Touching. I doubt its historical accuracy, but, to be fair, films are rarely historically accurate, even historical films. Definitely go see it if you have the opportunity.

    • Just got back from the flicks – Worth every cent, I loved it. Powerful acting and great characters. It gets the major technical points right without taking too many liberties. But where it shines is with the acting, and social message. Hard to talk about it with out spoilers, go see it you won’t be disappointed.

  • Load More