In early April of 2015, Apple released the software update iOS 8.3, thereby welcoming new racially and sexually diverse emojis into the global social-networking sphere. “What a wonderful idea,” you might say. In fact, when I first heard of this update I thought something along the lines of, “Way to go, Apple, for finally representing the billions of non-white or non-straight inhabitants of this planet.”

But, in reality, this change aiming to recognize diversity has already had detrimental effects to the ways in which race is handled on social-networking platforms.

Mainly, choosing which race to use for an emoji forces people of color to pointlessly identify themselves in a way that segregates them from other races. Because I am white, should I only use white-skinned emojis? What if I use another skin color and accidentally conform to a racially charged stereotype?

As Naomi Harris of University of Maryland’s The Diamondback explains, “Something as seemingly minor as an emoticon reinforces the notion that people of color as ‘others.’” Instead of practicing “colorblindness” and allowing equal communication with others, diverse emojis exacerbate the divisions between races. People of color are forced to unnecessarily identify and separate themselves from other races in everyday conversation.

As has already been seen since their release, the new emojis have also created both accidental and intentional racial problems on social media.

“The emojis are being used to make racist social comments on social media and insert questions of race in texts and Tweets where it may never have arisen before,” states Washington Post columnist Paige Tutt.

Clorox, for example, released a tweet that reads, “New emojis are alright but where’s the bleach.” Meaning to refer to the new cleaning emojis, the tweet received backlash on the grounds of racist implications.

Intentionally “humorous” memes and screenshots, similarly, have begun to appear using the new emojis. The other day I saw a picture online titled “when yo credit score going up” that depicted the progression of emoji races from black to white. While there are plenty of ways to be racist on the Internet, there is still no point in adding another method.

The best option would be for Apple to create a racially neutral emoji and get rid of the five other races. But wait, the company did try to do that! But the default “neutral” race is bright yellow, an installment that has both offended Asians and led people to assume the option is meant to represent the Asian minority.

Although they insensitively represented only one ethnicity, white emojis on the previous software created a certain homogeneity and equality of use. This constancy, though based on a privileged norm, did not create obvious and arbitrary divisions between races like the ones that exist now.

However, I do not think that Apple will take it back. Since many people, including myself, had a gut reaction that tells them that the company is being progressive with the new update, Apple has no reason to condemn the new emojis. I just hope that, if they create larger problems, Apple remains reasonable and socially conscious enough to take the racial component down.

You’re sick and you don’t know what ails you. What do you do? Do you go to the doctor or search your symptoms on Google? Just as a wild guess, I’d estimate that you would rather spend thirty minutes or more looking up medical information online than calling the doctor to schedule an appointment.

This common decision comes, as you would probably know, with the risk of misinformation. Much of the medically-focused Internet is based on user-generated forums and the biased marketing of certain products. It is easy to get lost in the stories that unknown users tell of rare, horrifying diagnoses and simple symptoms that lead toward some fatal disease. It is also easy to fall for advice on the Internet that benefits the website’s own profit and not the patient’s health.

Likewise, using the Internet as a resource for information on personal health drains medical care of its emotional and psychological element. With the importance of emotional intelligence climbing to the forefront of medical training and success, one would think that physicians would gradually distance themselves from the Internet. But as Tom Brand, executive director of the medical consulting firm Avid Design verifies, “there’s been a huge buzz” about moving patient care into this realm.

It’s a dangerous buzz. The extent of the rapid growth and development of online interactive healthcare websites is astounding. Hospitals are creating video tutorials, programs for virtual check-ups and even remote sensors that can relay vital signs. An article published in 2001 in the “Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine” entitled “The Internet: It’s Role in Medicine and Healthcare” claims, “Such technology means that, in 20 years’ time, many patients will no longer need to travel to see a specialist.”

Some physicians and companies (for example social networking sites like “Patients Like Me”) believe that these online resources increase the quality of patient care. But, nothing on the internet can match the quality of face-to-face contact with a doctor. Complete healthcare requires an honest, in-depth conversation, and moving doctor-to-patient interactions online compromises the emotional care that patients both want and need.

In his book “Emotional Intelligence,” Daniel Goleman goes into depth regarding the necessity of emotional care of patients. Anger, anxiety and depression, he says, have been proven to actually stagnate the recovery process, suppress the immune system and damage certain organs. Shifting medical care into such an impassive arena, therefore, compromises both patients’ happiness and physical health.

I am often scared by what the Internet tells me about my symptoms, and my mother, a practicing physician, sometimes scares me just the same. Whichever method you choose, you are likely to encounter something you don’t want to hear. The difference is that doctors can reassure you, care for you and provide trustworthy information. This is the most valuable aspect of healthcare, and it can’t be destroyed by the impersonal advances of online technology.

On the night of Monday March 30, 2015, after the first day of classes for most Whitman College students, President Jorge Ponts sent an official warning email to the entire community. Although it was hitherto unclear as to what exactly occurred on that night, the President clearly stated that Hollywood superstar Shia LaBeouf had appeared on campus “naked and bloodied,” and managed to “terrorize” a few select groups of students.

After confirming the reports were not prank calls, Campus Security sent their army of six officers to search for the disheveled celebrity. Fortunately no students were significantly physically harmed, but Security was unable to locate the estranged man due to an unfortunately timed streaking event through which LaBeouf was able to blend in and escape.

“We heard something growl and… [stifling sobs] there he was, blood everywhere holding what looked like a human arm,” explained one student regarding his close encounter with LaBeouf near the Organic Garden. According to combined accounts, LaBeouf approached the students menacingly, but decided not to attack after further inspection. This is most likely due to the relative lankiness of Whitman Students and their corresponding hobo-esque, cannibalistic appearance.

Although President Ponts’ email understandably advised students to stay away from dark streets and not walk alone, he also required that students report any and all sightings of the wild man. This desperate search is not, as one would assume, because of his potential to inflict physical harm but to bring him into an urgent investigation of sexual assault.

Since one victim recounted that LaBeouf grabbed his female friend’s thigh without consent, Whitman College administrators have noted a potential Title IX case involving the celebrity. The woman insisted, “he wanted to eat me, not rape me,” but the college adamantly wishes to detain the man to further investigate the matter.

Until then, the Whitman community can only hope that actual, cannibal Shia LaBeouf is distracted by the meaty convicts in the Walla Walla Penitentiary and chooses not to wreak further havoc upon the school.

Illustration by Lya Hernandez.

All have witnessed, experienced or at least heard of the “Frozen” craze that swept through American youth in 2013. Like many Disney movies, “Frozen” leapt into children’s hearts and didn’t seem to leave for, well, an absurdly long time.

The movie’s effect on children and preteens represents just one blown-up instance of pop culture’s imprint on youth in the contemporary world. Children constantly assess who they are and naturally choose role models from the media to which they are exposed. While this enculturation is theoretically beneficial, the shallowness of character and intelligence, in effect the “dumbing down,” of pop culture in recent years has compromised the behavior and emotional growth of children. But you can stop it.

“The part of the brain that makes us aware of how other people see us grows significantly just as we are entering adolescence,” explains Ben Allen, a clinical psychologist based in Northbrook, Ill. Older children and early teens do not have a sense of who they are, but they suddenly become aware of how they are viewed by others. This is why, at this particular stage in development, kids desperately feel the need to become accepted and “cool.” It also explains why everyone hated middle school.

Girls especially tend to maintain even lower senses self-confidence during this developmental stage. As Brooke Wiseman, the executive director of Girl Scouts of Chicago, points out, “It’s that gap between their emotional development, which is right where it should be, and their physical and cognitive development, which has been accelerated, that makes girls so vulnerable to popular culture.” Both girls and boys, in this way, replace lack of confidence with pop cultural knowledge and choose role models to guide their sense of self.

But saying that children are “vulnerable” to pop culture, as Wiseman does, makes it sound like an inherently toxic convention. Pop culture itself does not heighten the self-esteem, sex, violence or any other behavioral issues among teens. Instead, it is the quality of the media that children are exposed to — the essence of what pop culture does portray as “cool.”

In the early 20th Century, pop culture as we define it now began with innovative symphonies like “The Rite of Spring,” the creation of national sports leagues and the establishment of literary magazines like TIME. It could be argued that these cultural developments positively educated and widened the perspective of the human mind.

Today the same cannot be said. Shows like “Beavis and Butthead” broadcast to all ages, ditsy celebrities like Kim Kardashian form the epicenter of entertainment news and rap songs about “hoes” and “tricks” blast from radios around the country. Even “Frozen,” a supposedly progressive Disney movie about sisterly love and heroism, is ridden with standards of beauty and gender roles that often do not deviate from classic fairytales created decades ago.

According to a study performed by The New York Times in 1995, “Half of those surveyed said they believed portrayals of sex and violence on television, in movies and in music lyrics contribute ‘a lot’ to whether teenagers become sexually active or violent.” This was 20 years ago. Why do we still buy into the shallow, stupid entertainment that the media shoves into our face?

You are aware that pop culture has gotten dumber, that it has negatively affected you or your child’s self-esteem and sense of self. So why don’t you stop? Do little things: cut yourself off from social media; don’t flip through the “People” magazines in the checkout line at Safeway; insult celebrities whose actions you wouldn’t imitate yourself. Then, maybe, with the “coolness” extracted from modern pop culture, the minds of children can watch it become exactly what everyone else sees it as: just dumb.

“Tonight we honor Hollywood’s best and whitest — sorry, brightest,” jokes host Neil Patrick Harris in his opening line of the 87th Annual Academy Awards. Harris, a comedian who tends to skirt dangerously along the line between humorous and offensive, speaks the truth when he perceives the whiteness of the Academy Awards.

This year, only five of the nominated directors were not white, and not one female director or writer was even nominated. Most astonishingly, not a single actor or actress of color was nominated in any category. This has occurred three times since 1995, and it reveals a recurring pattern of whiteness that the Oscars cannot seem to escape.

Last year’s show, boasting relatively diverse nominations and wins, suggested a change in this pattern. “12 Years a Slave” raked in Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress. Among other minority winners, Alfonso Cuarón won Best Director for his film “Gravity,” making him the first winning Mexican director in this category.

These monumentally diverse wins made history for the 2014 Academy Awards and insinuated a change that many thought would lead into this year’s show. Of course, this proved not to be the case, and the striking contrast between the two years has caused many viewers and moviegoers to question the opinion and reliability of the members of the Academy.

According to a recently published article by International Business Times, of the 6,028 members, 94 percent are white, 77 percent are men and 86 percent are 50 years of age and above. Talk about homogenous. Although the president of the Academy, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, is a black woman, this clearly hasn’t had much of an effect, and members seem to use that to justify their own lack of consciousness toward diversity.

The Hollywood Reporter anonymously interviewed a few voting members, one of whom said ,“We have a two-term president who is a black woman, and we give out awards to black people when they deserve them, just like any group.” While it is important for members to vote based on quality, it is hard to believe that “Selma” and “Unbroken” got snubbed out of nominations solely for that reason.

The Academy, nonetheless, attempted to make up for the lack of diversity through selected performances by minority groups. Tegan and Sara, two gay indie rock/pop twins, and Lady Gaga, who is now openly bisexual, were both invited. Jennifer Hudson delivered a breathtaking and soulful performance, and John Legend and Common staged their original song “Glory” from “Selma” based on the Civil Rights Movement.

These shows, while undoubtedly rousing, emotional and symbolic, still represent the Academy’s desperate attempt to play down and draw attention away from this year’s inevitable lack of diversity. Like Whitman College, the Academy Awards face an intense pressure to change the homogeneity of their voters and nominees.

Cheryl Boones Isaacs, in response to criticism, said, “I would love to see and look forward to see a greater cultural diversity among all our nominees in all of our categories.” Realizing this goal would mean an enormous shift in the ethnic makeup of Hollywood itself, and we can only hope that Isaacs will push, as is needed, in that direction.

“I just walked up to her to give her like a friendly girly kiss, you know, as girls do.”

Katy Perry’s response to a “friendly” encounter with Miley Cyrus on stage during one of Cyrus’ performances in February 2014 reflects everything that is wrong with the portrayal of lesbian and bisexual relationships in pop culture.

It has become a trend in movies, television shows and advertisements for relationships between women to be highly sexualized and understated. Perry sustains this unrealistic social standard when she nonchalantly kisses Cyrus on stage and then later complains about Cyrus trying to “go deeper.”

She even made her breakout single “I Kissed a Girl” into a heteronormative experience by grinding on Lenny Kravitz at the Super Bowl halftime show. Thank you, Katy Perry, for letting us enter this absurd world where it is normal for all girls to just go up and kiss their friends on the lips. Where it is normal to sing about an exciting sexual experience with another girl while grinding on a dude.

Perry’s actions reflect the recently created social standard that relationships between girls are “hot.” Along with many other artists and influential people, Perry prolongs the assumption that, when two girls get together, they are asking for attention from the male gender. This turns a lesbian interaction into something unimportant, something that “girls do,” when, in fact, this type of self-identification is both unique and enormously significant.

When I told one of my guy friends from high school that I was bisexual, he paused for a second and then said with enthusiasm, “That’s hot!” I laughed and pretended I wasn’t offended, but in fact all I really wish he had said was “Wow, good for you!” because it made me feel he thought my own sexual identity was there to please him.

Lesbian and bisexual women feel insignificant when their sexual orientation is placed in the hands of the opposite gender. Although it is helpful for women to come out in a society that is more accepting of that orientation, this “acceptance” is created by a social standard that indirectly degrades those gay relationships. It’s difficult to be taken seriously as a gay or bisexual woman when there are all of these straight attractive women making out on TV.

The detrimental effect of this social standard does not show its face at Whitman College in full. The only demeaning reactions I have received toward my sexuality were from Southern friends in high school. Of all places, Whitman seems to take bisexual and lesbian interactions most seriously. That does not mean, though, that students should not be continually aware of the negative effects that pop culture has on gay women.

Do me a favor: If a woman ever tells you personally that they are gay or bisexual, take it seriously. Don’t act like it’s a phase. Don’t change the way you view them. Just say “cool” and ignore everything that Katy Perry whispers into your subconscious ear.

Immediately upon the Seahawks’ glorious and absurdly lucky win against the Green Bay Packers a few weeks ago, I called my twin brother in Seattle only to hear an ear-assaulting flood of laughing and screaming surrounded by distant firework explosions.

“Zan… I’m just, I’m just running around outside. I don’t know why. I just can’t sit still.”

Adrenaline was evidently surging through him, and I picked up on a faint sound of sobs and sniffles. This was the first time that Gavin had cried in two years, and it was because of a football game.

This reaction might seem absurd, even to an avid sports fan, but the Seahawks’ fan base has turned into a community that is inordinately devoted. Aside from the few who just hopped on the bandwagon, most fans, including my twin and me, hold an intense emotional attachment to the team and to each game. Passionate responses like this across the country have led psychologists to investigate the connections between sports and religion in America.

According to a survey done by the Public Religion Research Institute, one half of Americans believe that God or other supernatural forces play a role in the outcome of the Super Bowl. In this way, sports teams and players embody God’s will, and religion evidently plays directly into sports games.

But many psychologists argue further that the culture surrounding sports has managed to create a faith entirely separate from the religions that have already been established. Sports and religion are separate, and they serve the same purpose in relation to American culture and the psychology of human spirituality.

The stadium and the church are comparable in their ability to bring a community together in a ceremonial manner. Especially through singing and chanting, these revered spaces create the same feeling of social “electricity” as a result of seasonally ritualistic, unifying worship. As Psychology Today columnist Nigel Barber explains, sports fans “face painting, hair tinting and distinctive costumes are thought to satisfy specific religious goals” like establishing a communal identity and escaping from boring, everyday life.

In the same way that people are often “born” into their religion, children raised in sporty families are “born” into a sports following. Heretics and fans of rival teams receive similarly hateful threats from specific fan bases and religions. Also, through enculturation, as leading sports psychologist Daniel Wann mentions, people associate specific vocabulary with their team and religion alike: dedication, celebration, suffering, worship, faith.

Most Americans do not consciously connect the spiritual aspects of sports with the predominant religions that exist today. The deeply emotional and spiritual experience that comes along with watching sporting events, especially ones as nerve-wracking as the recent Seahawks-Packers game, is not associated with religion because the game seems more present than some aspects of religion.

But even though religious gods are technically abstract and athletes are living people, both trace back to the same cause. Humans seek to join a communal identity, but more importantly, they seek faith. In a religiously declining modern world, we have adapted to our basic need for faith, devotion and worship by dedicating ourselves to sports teams. As traditional faith continues to decline, Americans will be more worried about winning a game than achieving salvation.

The aforementioned survey found that three quarters of Americans are more likely to be watching football than going to church on Sunday. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 10 years, the pews were empty.

I have not always described myself as the most “feminist” person. Sure, I participated in controversial social movements, notably in the gay rights movement by founding a gay-straight alliance at the boarding school I attended. But it took moving out of the South and into the ultra-liberal community that is Whitman College to confirm the wide and radical extent of America’s opinions on social issues like feminism and gay rights.

Of course, moving somewhere new exposes us to new beliefs. But, it is exceedingly difficult to be open-minded and aware of other beliefs when we only encounter them through the media. Most people are familiar with “Duck Dynasty” and “Toddlers & Tiaras” and all of those reality television shows that seem like entirely foreign worlds compared to the culture of the Pacific Northwest. We only view these cultures on TV, though, and we are unable to consciously digest the fact that people across the United States really agree with the radical beliefs they represent.

When Kim Kardashian willingly and encouragingly published objectifying naked photographs of herself in Paper magazine — photos that went viral — most feminists (and Whitman College students) thought something along the lines of “Are you kidding me?” Liberal feminists view stars of reality shows, like Snooki and Kim Kardashian, as caricatured embodiments of the degradation of the female. Kim posed for Playboy, took credit for a sex tape that was released in 2007 and is rumored to have undergone plastic surgery. According to the editorial director of Paper, “it was her idea to take off her clothes and show more than her butt.”

In effect, she makes a career out of sexualizing herself, and this is something that most feminists, understandably, detest. By owning that lifestyle, Kim Kardashian backstabs generations of women who protested a media culture that put pressure on women to portray themselves as sexual objects for men.

This is my take on the issue, and I imagine most of the Whitman College community would agree. However, my view is different from the majority of the American response to Kim’s naked butt. Some reacted to the controversy with the argument that the celebrity’s naked photos encourage female empowerment and break the social bond that traps female self-expression. Suchi Sundaram of web blog “Feminspire” wrote that, by objectifying herself, “[Kim Kardashian] exemplifies the liberties that she can take in this society to achieve her goals.” Cosmopolitan magazine contributor Danielle Henderson even said, “You can’t deny her power, her business acumen … she presents her life as a work of art.”

So, while it is easy to jump on the feminist bandwagon and say, “Are you kidding me?” in response to naked Kim, it is crucial, in light of social controversies, to be open-minded toward the ideas that other, less liberal groups present. I cannot say I was not shocked and disgusted by her photos at first. I can, however, say that supportive arguments that my North Carolinian friends brought up caused me to realize that I had entrenched myself in one belief. Although Kim does seem to make a career out of her body, she owns everything she does. Even though it may be self-degrading, she is confident, powerful and takes her own lead. This is a perception worth noticing, whether it changes your opinion or not.

By immediately accepting a point of view because it is what everyone seems to think, we position ourselves against other beliefs that are worth considering. As a liberal born and raised, the conception of my own open-mindedness tends to couple with a sense of superiority over those who have opposite opinions. But, when this superiority sets in, the open-mindedness slowly fades. My open-mindedness surrounding Kim was deficient until I forced myself to actually take my friends’ views into consideration.

Without awareness of the diversity of beliefs within this country, opinions cannot change. If you don’t move somewhere radically new at some point in your life, then you must consciously strive toward a constant sense of awareness and acceptance. Maybe, if you reach that goal, someone will change your entire opinion.

Illustration by Hernandez

In September of 2014, the largest celebrity hacking scandal in history made its way to the forefront of pop culture news. Unidentified hackers illegally obtained naked photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Rihanna, and others, in an event which illuminates the modern world’s desperate need for higher and more defined internet regulation. The leak has stirred up more than a few angry grumblings from both celebrities and the general public.

According to The Guardian’s website, the hackers are believed to have gathered the photos from Apple’s iCloud, the company’s predominant networking storage unit that is able to transfer information through multiple servers. The Guardian also claims that the hackers obtained the celebrities’ photos by “chaining”—once they accessed one person’s account, they used the contact information in that account to access others. This is what allowed for such a large number of photos to be released all at once.

After the photos leaked, they were posted onto an anonymous image board website called 4chan. Of course, once they were out of the cloud and into the juvenile, loose-lipped community of the image-based internet, the nude photos spread like wildfire.

Much of the blame for the incident, however, has not gone to 4chan or even to Apple. According to Wired Magazine, data breach lawsuits are often dismissed because “the United States … has no overarching law dictating the security of a technology company.” Plus, those privacy policies that no one actually reads often disavow all liability, so companies cannot be blamed for scandals such as these.

While Apple and 4chan got off scot-free, Google, a company that wasn’t even involved in the hacking event, faces a $100 million lawsuit. Filed by the celebrities targeted by the leak, the suit argues that Google’s slow response to the hack prolonged the plaintiffs’ exploitation and victimization.Martin Singer, a top entertainment lawyer on the case, claims that while other small websites took the photos down within hours of their release, Google turned a blind eye.

While Google does deserve some blame for not acting expediently toward the removal of the photos, the public seems to have forgotten about the role of Apple and 4chan. While it should be Google’s goal to maintain an ethical internet void of female victimization, it is not the company’s job to eradicate images they weren’t responsible for. Furthermore, the images became as permanent as anything else that gets onto the internet, so preventing all search engine access to them would have been next to impossible.

Apple, on the other hand, still doesn’t have a clear picture of how hackers bypassed its security. Though it can’t be possibleto prevent all hackers from breaching iCloud, there must at least be some incentive for internet companies to prevent these situations. If companied like Apple can’t be sued due to privacy policies and inadequate federal laws, they have no reason to develop stronger security.

4chan, as well, is immune from the type of lawsuit targeting Google. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law passed in 1996 to aid websites based on user-generated content, protects social websites like Craigslist and Reddit from getting sued for images like those leaked.

Though internet users should have the freedom to share what they want to, naked images of celebrities should not be spread to all corners of the world. Companies should be required by law to confine certain risky material to their websites.

Similarly, a “check here and click next” message shoved in the face does not tell the user what they are getting into. Federal law, therefore, must also require liability and privacy policies to become understandable to the average viewer. Controlling this seemingly unmentioned issue, along with confining certain material within websites, can make the internet safer while still allowing for freedom.

Freedom and responsibility of the user persists as a key feature of the internet, but legal lines must be drawn in order to also keep the internet ethical and safe. Apple, Google, 4chan, and the government must realize that personal, disgusting, widespread invasion of privacy calls for legal intervention. The most recent nude photo scandal just reinforces the urgent need of more defined laws in relation to the worldwide internet.

Illustration by Rust

“The Interview,” a movie starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, takes America’s anti-North Korean stance to a whole new level. Just for funsies, the movie berates Kim Jong-un and the North Korean government amid an already prominent national tension.

At one point in the official trailer of the film, which is to be released in December of 2014, Franco jokes, “You wanna go kill Kim Jong-un?” Rogen replies, “Totally, I’d love to assassinate Kim Jong-un. It’s a date!”

The two characters do not even attempt to be subtle about their view of Kim Jong-un as a domineering, senseless, communist dictator. The trailer is filled with stereotypes and satirical comedy that, similar to the TV show “South Park,” might shock even American viewers.

While the movie seems completely outrageous and fake, Rogen argues that “The Interview” is, in fact, a completely accurate depiction of Kim Jong-un and his regime. In an interview with CBC news, he claims that they made up nothing, “as crazy as it is.”

The North Korean administration’s response to the imminent release of the movie does not counter Rogen’s claim, but, as to be expected, it also does not take the movie lightly. In a Foreign Ministry statement, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) called the movie “a most wanton act of terror and act of war.” Whether it could be perceived as a war threat or not, this statement at least reveals the severe extent of North Korean anti-American sentiment. The mutual enmity between North Korea and the United States is now very tangible.

The release of “The Interview” also strengthens an internal conflict of feeling within the United States itself. Some Americans argue that the film is wrong and should not be released because it intensifies a conflict that would otherwise not build. Others argue that the movie is perfectly acceptable because of the First Amendment. It’s just a movie, for God’s sake.

But this passive view is dangerous. While, yes, the movie has every right to be made and released in this country, it cannot be taken lightly.Kim Myong-chol, executive director of the Centre for North Korea-U.S. Peace and close associate of the former Kim Jong-il, warns Americans about shrugging off the implications of the movie. He claims that the film “shows the desperation of the U.S. government and American society.” What the makers of the film think is a joke is actually a passive-aggressive attack rooted in nationalistic hatred.

“The Interview”is, like Myong-chol says, both highly offensive and desperate, but it would be entirely un-American to prevent its release. American values are rooted in the First Amendment, and nothing could prompt the Obama administration or the producers of the film to take it down.

As citizens of both the United States and the world, however, the makers of the movie, including Rogen and Franco, should have considered its consequences more carefully. Freedom of speech is written into the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean that every book published, ad produced or movie made does good for the country. If the producers had thought more about the worldwide effects of the film, and less about pleasing their own patriotic nation, they would probably feel guilty about the boiling pot of tension they have unknowingly, or maybe purposefully, stirred up.

But, instead, the actors at least seem to sense no threat or personal responsibility. While Kim Jong-un stews in a pot of hatred and contempt, Seth Rogen sarcastically Tweets, “Apparently Kim Jong-un plans on watching #TheInterview. I hope he likes it!!” At least the two parties are sticking to their values… right?+