Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Gaming press has also traditionally been pretty reliant on advertising from the people they're supposed to be reviewing. It's danger for any enthusiast press, but model trains don't generally bring in one hundred billion dollars a year.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 06:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 20:53

Entropic: Feb 21, 2007; patriarchy sucks

7c Nickel posted:

Gaming press has also traditionally been pretty reliant on advertising from the people they're supposed to be reviewing. It's danger for any enthusiast press, but model trains don't generally bring in one hundred billion dollars a year.

This has always been a thing, but no one really cared much about journalistic integrity in video game reviews because they're just loving video game reviews. Until a girl does one and she has opinions you don't like.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 16:47

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Entropic posted:

This has always been a thing, but no one really cared much about journalistic integrity in video game reviews because they're just loving video game reviews. Until a girl does one and she has opinions you don't like.

She must have used the pussy lure.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 16:49

lifg: Dec 4, 2000; <this tag left blank>; Muldoon

PT6A posted:

So why is it such an issue in games journalism? How did we find ourselves in this situation where a) this goes on and b) the "reviewers" are still respected enough that people pay attention to what they say? I mean, how many people buy a game in the first week anyway? Surely it would be better to have a reviewer who's untainted by payola and actually plays the game and reviews it honestly, even if it means the review comes out a bit later.

One major problem is that development studios often have their bonuses tied to their game's Metacritic score. It creates a huge incentive to game that system.

I can't think of of any other media industry that works like that. Normally a financially successful product is itself a cause for reward.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 19:24

rkajdi: Sep 11, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

lifg posted:

One major problem is that development studios often have their bonuses tied to their game's Metacritic score. It creates a huge incentive to game that system.

I can't think of of any other media industry that works like that. Normally a financially successful product is itself a cause for reward.

This is the millionth time I've heard this, and it still sounds as absolutely insane as the first time. Is this like the crap with tying profit sharing to customer surveys (something that happened at the union grocery chain I worked at) in that some corporate genius thought that it would work out better?

That being said, this whole deal (i.e. gaming journalism ethics) is the dumbest thing ever. Why should you expect a separation from the subject they cover? We don't expect this from political journalists, for instance, and even reward the ones who get the best insdier news. In reality, the whole thing should be obvious based on the initial target-- paying your way in with cash is 100% fine, but actually using inter-personal skills (i.e. something the GG basement squad will never have) is forbidden. It's like some liberterian insane dream where legitimate human connections aren't allowed, only money is allowed to create social connections.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 19:49

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

rkajdi posted:

This is the millionth time I've heard this, and it still sounds as absolutely insane as the first time. Is this like the crap with tying profit sharing to customer surveys (something that happened at the union grocery chain I worked at) in that some corporate genius thought that it would work out better?

It makes sense because publishers get diamond-cutting hard when it comes to Metacritic quotability. You get poo poo like "TITANFALL: OVER 300 PERFECT METACRITIC SCORES!" that flood the air the first week or so the game is out. And then, when the sequel/related product launches, you get to rehash those hackneyed scores because pedigree.

quote:

That being said, this whole deal (i.e. gaming journalism ethics) is the dumbest thing ever. Why should you expect a separation from the subject they cover? We don't expect this from political journalists, for instance, and even reward the ones who get the best insider news.

They're operating from a weird place where their memories of EGM and GAMEPRO are inviolable texts. "And lo, did Sushi-X -- who was indeed a meganinja and NOT a cover for whomever wanted to rant and rave at the time -- declare that Super Metroid was good. And in doing so, bestowed the Platinum 10 upon the title, anointing it as holy."

That, and they're only interested in a small subset of reviews -- technical reviews that distill the paste of the game into things like "has RPG like levelling up" "I had fun" "graphics pretty" -- which are more akin to a tech readout of the latest Audi from Top Gear.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 21:17

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Entropic posted:

This has always been a thing, but no one really cared much about journalistic integrity in video game reviews because they're just loving video game reviews. Until a girl does one and she has opinions you don't like.

Jim Sterling did, but I don't think he's on the "gamer" side in this one.

# ? Dec 1, 2014 21:26

Vertical Lime: Dec 11, 2004

I just posted this in the Right Wing media thread, but this is vintage NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/eric-garner-was-a-victim-of-himself-for-deciding-to-resist/

quote:

Blame only the man who tragically decided to resist

By Bob McManus December 4, 2014 | 12:03am

Eric Garner and Michael Brown had much in common, not the least of which was this: On the last day of their lives, they made bad decisions. Epically bad decisions.

Each broke the law � petty offenses, to be sure, but sufficient to attract the attention of the police.

And then � tragically, stupidly, fatally, inexplicably � each fought the law.

The law won, of course, as it almost always does.

This was underscored yet again Wednesday when a Staten Island grand jury chose not to indict any of the arresting officers in the death in police custody of Garner last July.

Just as a grand jury last week declined to indict the police officer who shot a violently resisting Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, Mo., in August.

Demagoguery rises to an art form in such cases � because, again, the police generally win. (Though not always, as a moment�s reflection before the Police Memorial in lower Manhattan will underscore.) And because those who advocate for cop-fighters are so often such accomplished beguilers.

They cast these tragedies as, if not outright murder, then invincible evidence of an enduringly racist society.

No such thing, as a matter of fact. Virtually always, these cases represent sad, low-impact collisions of cops and criminals � routine in every respect except for an outlier conclusion.

The Garner case is textbook.

Eric Garner was a career petty criminal who�d experienced dozens of arrests, but had learned nothing from them. He was on the street July 17, selling untaxed cigarettes one at a time � which, as inconsequential as it seems, happens to be a crime.

Yet another arrest was under way when, suddenly, Garner balked. �This ends here,� he shouted � as it turned out, tragically prophetic words � as he began struggling with the arresting officer.

Again, this was a bad decision. Garner suffered from a range of medical ailments � advanced diabetes, plus heart disease and asthma so severe that either malady might have killed him, it was said at the time.

Still, he fought � and at one point during the struggle, a cop wrapped his arm around Garner�s neck.

That image was captured on bystander video and later presented as irrefutable evidence of an �illegal� chokehold and, therefore, grounds for a criminal indictment against the cop.

That charge fails, and here�s why.

First, while �chokeholds� are banned by NYPD regulation, they�re not illegal under state law when used by a cop during a lawful arrest. So much for criminal charges, given that nobody seriously disputes the legitimacy of the arrest.

Second, and this speaks to the ubiquitous allegation that cops are treated �differently� than ordinary citizens in deadly-force cases: Indeed they are � and it is the law itself that confers the privilege.

The law gives cops the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the good-faith performance of their duties � and who would really have it any other way?

Cops who need to worry about whether the slightest mishap � a minor misunderstanding that escalates to violence of any sort � might result in criminal charges and a prison term are not cops who are going to put the public�s interests first.

Finally, there is this: There were 228,000 misdemeanor arrests in New York City in 2013, the last year for which there are audited figures, and every one of them had at least the potential to turn into an Eric Garner-like case.

None did.

So much for the �out of control� cop trope. So much for the notion that everyday citizens � or even criminals with the presence of mind to keep their hands to themselves � have something to fear from the NYPD.

Keep this in mind as the rhetoric fogs the facts in the hours and days ahead.

For there are many New Yorkers � politicians, activists, trial lawyers, all the usual suspects � who will now seek to profit from a tragedy that wouldn�t have happened had Eric Garner made a different decision.

He was a victim of himself. It�s just that simple.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 19:09

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Excuse me everyone, I'm just so convinced I live in a just world that I have to shout it loudly enough at regular intervals to drown out everyone else.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 19:20

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Vertical Lime posted:

I just posted this in the Right Wing media thread, but this is vintage NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/eric-garner-was-a-victim-of-himself-for-deciding-to-resist/

I can't remember the last time I so viscerally wanted someone to suffer.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 19:22

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

I can't remember the last time I so viscerally wanted someone to suffer.

The fact that he isn't is the best proof that his just world doesn't exist.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 19:25

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

The fact that he isn't is the best proof that his just world doesn't exist.

I think Eric Garner's death is significantly stronger proof.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 19:28

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Jack Gladney posted:

Excuse me everyone, I'm just so convinced I live in a just world that I have to shout it loudly enough at regular intervals to drown out everyone else.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 19:52

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

Here have some an article from BBC on the Ferguson protests full of white people going " :qq:

why didn't the media cover it when three black people beat a Bosnian immigrant to death :qq:

"

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30287363

quote:

On early Sunday morning in St Louis, Zemir Begic was beaten to death by hammer-wielding assailants.

According to St Louis police, the 32-year-old Bosnian immigrant was driving his car with two passengers, including his fiance, when something hit his vehicle. Begic got out and was confronted and murdered by multiple attackers.

Begic was unconscious when emergency personnel arrived on the scene, and he later died at a local hospital.

Police have arrested three teenage suspects and charged them with murder. They are still looking for a fourth.

Although the suspects are black or Hispanic, and Begic was white, St Louis police say that they have no indication that race was a factor in the attack.

"We think it was wrong place, wrong time," police representative Schron Jackson told the St Louis Post-Dispatch.

The murder has stunned the city's Bosnian community, one of the largest in the US. On Sunday more than 150 residents took to the street to protest what they see as increasing incidents of violence in their neighbourhood.

Given that the attack occurred less than 14 miles from the town of Ferguson, which has been under a bright media spotlight since the August shooting of a black teen by a white police officer, local residents have been quick to draw comparisons.

"In Ferguson, they want to make a protest about nothing and yet that attracted attention across the nation," Adam Esmerovic told the Washington Post's Todd C Frankel. "We're just trying to keep more police down here because of these little thugs."

Frankel observes that it's police inaction, not action, that has demonstrators angered. He describes the scene at the protests, drawing an implied comparison to the occasionally violent demonstrations that took place after officer Darren Wilson was cleared by a grand jury last week in the shooting death of Michael Brown:

"The protesters did not chant. The protesters didn't hurl insults at police. Some huddled around a bonfire on a garage's parking lot. A memorial for Begic with stuffed animals began to take shape in a corner. The protesters only edged into the street whenever police showed signs of losing interest and departing."

Beyond the local reaction, the story has gained traction among conservative commentators and bloggers, who view it as an example of media and liberal activist hypocrisy for expressing outrage over Brown's death but ignoring the Begic attack.

If the episode can somehow be linked to the Ferguson demonstrations, that fact could be used to discredit the protest as a whole, characterising it as the work of lawless and violent malcontents (a theme also raised during recent episodes of looting and vandalism).

"Where is the national media?" asks the conservative social-media-gazing website Twitchy.

Another conservative blog collected blank search results for "Begic" on news sites like Buzzfeed, Mother Jones and MSNBC.

Twitter posters widely circulated a screen capture showing that the only "Begic" hit on a New York Times search was for an article on dry-cured hams.

The media, writes Arnold Ahlert of the Patriot Post, refuse "to consider the possibility that Begic was killed because of his race, or as a spill-over reaction to the jury verdict and subsequent rioting in Ferguson".

"The same media that descended on Ferguson en masse, in all their fact-free, hysteria-inducing, narrative-perpetrating glory, will be nowhere to be found," he writes. "The thugs who roamed the streets with hammers, 'just for the fun of it', will never have a bounty placed on their heads, or be forced to go into hiding in fear of their lives. Attorney General Eric Holder will not descend upon the scene to determine the motives of those thugs, or conduct a follow-up investigation to see if Begic's civil rights were violated."

He says the Begic story will be buried in the backs of newspapers and then "completely forgotten".

This hasn't exactly proven to be the case, however. Possibly due to the growing conservative outrage - which has more influence on mainstream journalists than right-wing advocates usually acknowledge - numerous media outlets have begun taking notice of the story, such as the aforementioned Washington Post, several New York City papers, CNN and NBC.

But is it fair to draw connections between Ferguson and this attack - beyond their close proximity? Like Ferguson, there are conflicting eyewitness accounts being reported. Although police assert that ethnicity was not a factor, some aren't so sure - and point to locals who say the attackers yelled racial epithets.

It's impossible to ignore, however, that Brown died at the hands of a police officer. In Ferguson, police were part of the story - and the focus of the black community's anger. Black-on-white crime, which appears to be the primary concern of some conservatives in the Begic case, is relatively infrequent. According to recent statistics, 83% of whites are killed by other whites, while 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks (although that last figure is also a subject of concern for Republicans like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani).

Given the long, troubled relations between law enforcement and blacks in the US - and the challenge of race relations in the US as a whole - the Ferguson incident was a match struck in the proverbial tinderbox.

The subsequent demonstrations, and a police response that was criticised as disproportionate and overly militarised, added fuel to the fire with visuals that captured the attention of the media - and the nation.

There can be no doubt that Begic's murder has failed to generate the same level of attention as the Brown shooting. And Begic's death, like the death of all victims of violent crime, is unquestionably tragic.

But what if the problem isn't that Brown's death received too much attention compared to Begic's murder? More than 15,000 homicides have been committed in the US so far in 2014 - black and white, police and civilian, immigrant and native-born.

Shouldn't every one of these deaths be a national outrage?

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:14

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Suspects arrested and charged vs. not. That's always the answer.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:25

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

VideoTapir posted:

Suspects arrested and charged vs. not. That's always the answer.

And they'll probably be convicted. I don't know if MO has the death penalty, but if it does, they might get that too (or at least be more likely to get it than if a white guy did the same murder).

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:27

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Seriously it's the same with Martin vs Lion and the same sort of " :qq:

why aren't black people complaining when this white kid got murdered by black people???" Because no one went through Lion's facebook to figure out why he deserved to be murdered, the people that did it were quickly arrested and went to jail, and no one tried to claim he attacked them first since obviously it was self defense.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:27

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Lyon played a thuggish violent sport that has its basis as an enactment of 18th Century warfare. This kid was no angel.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:31

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

You could almost say he was responsible for his own death. (it feels dirty to even joke about that)

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:32

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

Yeah, and on top of that, none of the three suspects in this case have raised a penny (let alone hundreds of thousands of dollars like Wilson did) for doing what they did.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:32

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Again and again and again. "Why aren't people talking about this murder where the perps were tried and convicted?"

DO YOU loving UNDERSTAND. THE DIFFERENCE.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:34

MariusLecter: Sep 5, 2009; NI MUERTE NI MIEDO

SedanChair posted:

Again and again and again. "Why aren't people talking about this murder where the perps were tried and convicted?"

DO YOU loving UNDERSTAND. THE DIFFERENCE.

NO GODDAMNIT! :bahgawd:

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:37

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

http://livingstingy.blogspot.com/2014/12/wacky-liberalism-revisted.html

quote:

Wacky Liberalism, Revisted
Wacky Liberalism isn't dead - in fact, it is on the rise!

I discussed Wacky Liberals before - along with Wacky Conservatives. Both annoy the snot out of me, and probably you as well. They are both classic weak thinkers and emotional thinkers who posit that "if only" their thinking being imposed on everyone else, the world would be a paradise-on-earth. It is a form of fascism, really. Yes, both Liberals and Conservatives can be fascists. The difference is, the Liberals will just force you to drive a steam-powered electric car, while the Conservatives will stuff you in an oven.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being Liberal. There is everything wrong with being Wacky Liberal.

I recently rant into some examples of Wacky Liberalism that gave me pause. I mean, I thought this sort of nonsense had been discredited by now! But it seems each generation grows its own new Wacky Liberals. What is annoying and scary and dangerous about Wacky Liberals, is that they believe certain things that are just assumed as baseline truths that are never up for discussion and thus you can't talk to them.

Yes, Wacky Conservatives are the same way - that is the subject for another posting. But in any argument, you have to challenge the premise - and often the premise is just plain wrong. And it is annoying when you see some "talk show" like The Daily Show or Bill Maher make these baseline assumptions, without really allowing for any discussion. It is close-minded thinking.

Here are some of the examples of these baseline assumptions that Wacky Liberals make - and refuse to even allow to be debated. If you challenge any of these assumptions, you are just written-off as a cruel, heartless conservative bastard. But sadly for the liberal movement, many "middle of the road" Americans don't believe these assumptions either - which does not bode well for the Democrats in 2016.

1. We can help the poor by giving them money. Poverty is the absence of money, ergo, if you give poor people money, they no longer will be poor! It is such a simple argument, and the refutation is complex, but it does illustrate how simplistic thinking work. Since the response takes paragraphs and the supposition can be said in a sentence, then there is no point in examining the "hard" answer. I saw this mentioned on one of Bill Maher's shows - and said as if it were an assumed background norm. Everyone on the panel just nodded in agreement. Scary stuff.

The symptom of poverty is lack of money. But the roots of poverty go far deeper than that. It starts with lack of equal opportunities - to jobs, education, housing. But what perpetuates it is poor decision-making. In poor neighborhoods (black and white) education is not valued. In fact, it is treated with suspicion. Them smart fellers with there college degrees, they don't know nuthin! - you hear this all the time in Georgia, from poor people.

And drugs and alcohol are also part of the problem. Crack in the Ghetto, Meth in the trailer park. Black or White, poor people chain themselves to the heartbreak of drug use. And drug use leads to poverty, as it costs a lot of money to maintain a drug habit, and having a drug habit causes people to make poor financial decision and makes them unemployable.

This illustrates the corellary baseline assumption about poverty - that all of the poor are nobler and better than us by dint of being poor. As I noted before, Hollywood loves this angle, beatifying the poor and even endowing them with mystical powers (as in the movie, The Green Mile). Not being tied down with "materialism" the poor are more in touch with things like supernatural powers, or God or whatever. Sadly, this is not true - the poor are more likely to be sucked up into the materialist consumer orgy that is the United States. Look at any trailer home and see how many junked cars, four-wheelers, and snowmobiles are parked outside. And chances are, they have a larger television that you do.

Poor folks make poor decisions - about major life choices, and also minor spending ones. Check-cashing stores and payday loan places (and thousands of other raw deals) proliferate in the Ghetto - not because "people there have no other choice" - but because they feel these are good choices to make, or at the very least, have no clue why they are bad choices.

Time and time again, lottery winners (and star athletes) have shown us that even giving millions of dollars to the poor doesn't make them "rich" - as they squander it all in short order.

In order to stop this cycle of poverty, we have to change attitudes - not merely give away free money. And yes, maybe it would be helpful to pass laws outlawing payday loan places and other poor choices.

Giving away free money to the poor has three fundamental problems: First, it doesn't un-poor the poor. Second, that money has to come from somewhere and that means from someone else. Third, it trains people to expect free handouts, which erodes our society. The bonus fourth reason is this: Our "poor" are richer than about 95% of the rest of the planet. You can't be "poor" and own a car, a microwave, and a wall-screen television. Well, in America, you can.

But the bottom line is this: There will always be people at the bottom of the totem pole. There will always be someone willing to waste their life on drug abuse or other forms of stupidity. Yes, a solution needs to be found, and a safety net provided. But you can't cure poverty just by handing out cash.

2. Money spend on anything is wasteful, as it could help feed the homeless. You see this all the time online. According to these folks, all progress in science, art, literature, architecture, and even humanity, should cease altogether, so long as even one person is homeless in America. Any money "wasted" on things like art museums, new factories, office buildings, a subway, a public park, or a satellite landing on a comet should be spent on soup-and-blankets for the poor. Anything less than this is criminal an inhuman.

If mankind had followed this "logic" however, nothing of consequence would ever have been accomplished in the history of man. The Renaissance? A waste of resources which could have been better spent feeding the poor! The moon landing? Think of how many homeless shelters we could have built!

The problem with homelessness is like with poverty, the solution isn't simply throwing money at people. Give money to a homeless person, they will still likely end up homeless. Rather than appeal to emotional arguments ("children are starving in the streets!") you have to look dispassionately at the real facts.

And the real facts are, the majority of homeless have mental health issues, drug or alcohol issues, or both. Very few homeless are just "economically disadvantaged" and those few that are, are working to get their way out of homelessness.

In order to "fix" homelessness, you would have to intervene in the lives of others and get them off drugs and into rehab, or make sure they take their medications. If you just gave them money, they would spend it on drugs. Give them soup and a blanket, and they just sleep in the park. Build a homeless shelter, and well, you've created a make-shift mental hospital that makes the horrors of Bedlam look like patty-cake.

And this is, in effect, what we have done - closed the mental hospitals, discharged the patients, and then put them in homeless shelters, where anarchy reins.

So if you really wanted to take an individual homeless person and get them out of homelessness, you'd have to get them sober, on their "meds", cleaned up (and get them to clean themselves daily), provide them with a bedroom and three meals a day, and then train them for a job. We used to call this institutionalization and we deemed it too expensive and inhumane.

And guess what? The homeless don't want that level of intervention. In fact, they don't want your busybody do-goody anything - just cash, please. Many prefer the life-under-a-bridge and being shitfaced or zonked out as much as possible. Since you can't force them to get sober and take their meds, well, you can't really change their behavior.

And we've all seen this firsthand. Someone has a sign that says, "I'm hungry, please help!" and you offer them food or offer to buy them food, and they refuse. "Just the money, thank you" they say. Because they are not so much hungry as they are just beggars, making a makeshift living off of your sympathy.

There is no easy answer to this problem. But simplistic thinking of Wacky Liberals says, "if only we spent all that money..." (meaning YOUR money) on some bum, the world will be a better place.

Oh, right, we can't call them bums, because they are "economically disadvantaged" and have their "dignity". That is part-and-parcel of Wacky Liberalism - the beatification of the Homeless, who they do not view as dangerous, mentally ill, drug-addicted bums who will steal from you and possibly assault you, but rather saintly harmless folks who are better than you because as Hollywood has taught us, the poor are more spiritual and often have magical powers (I kid you not, watch the Green Mile sometime).

But right, you can't say that, either. You see, debate on the issue is just cut off - by Wacky Liberals. You are evil for "having money" and a job and a house and a car, and the homeless deserve it all. That is their starting point and end point. It kind of makes me ill.

Here's the real truth about homelessness: It will always be with us (Jesus even said this). We don't have the money or the willpower to reopen mental hospitals and commit the more crazy of the homeless people to them. Ain't gonna happen. We don't have the money for all the rehab centers in the world, and rehab, by and large doesn't work - even though it costs a lot of dough.

I think all you can do is offer people who really want to change the opportunity to change, and let it go at that. You can't forcibly make people change, and in the case of homelessness, people have to want to change.

But alas, the Wacky Liberal thinks that "just regular folks" somehow end up homeless by dint of losing their homes (lost the keys, what?) and it "just happened" to them, and they have no way out. This might happen to a small minority of people who become homeless. Those folks don't remain homeless for long. (But it begs the question: How do you screw up your life to the point where you have nothing to fall back on and no place to live? And whose fault is that when it happens?).

So the question becomes this: Is the purpose of our civilization to work and strive so that mentally ill people and drug abusers should have a really nice place to live? Do we just put off or abandon all plans for anything in this world in favor of creating free apartments, free meals, and free clothing for drug addicts and the mentally ill? There are some among us who would say "YES" and that such a plan would be the highest achievement of mankind.

Others, including myself, don't think that our civilization will be judged by how we treat our bums. I am all for getting the homeless off the street and into institutions where they belong. Drug addicts and crazy people need help - and by living on the street they have demonstrated they are not capable of taking care of themselves. In the past, a compassionate society would have intervened and had such people institutionalized involuntarily - for their own good. In today's "free society" we can no longer do that, so we create this cruel system of homeless shelters, revolving-door outpatient clinics, and soup-kitchens.

The homeless "problem" today is one largely caused by Wacky Liberals. We all saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and decided that de-institutionalization was a wonderful thing. Now we reap what we have sown, and the same Wacky Liberals want to blame everyone else for the problem they caused!

3. Minorities are Always Disadvantaged and Need Special Treatment. This is another baseline assumption that is a bit of paternalism. The great white man will help all those little people who don't know any better and need a leg up in society.

Again, what galls me is not whether this creed is true or false but that discussion is not even allowed.

Yes, in the past, many racial minorities were subject to discrimination, and beatings, and hangings, and worse. Our nation's history of the treatment of minorities is nothing to be proud of. Then again, it is not too different from how minorities are treated anywhere in the world (be it religious, racial, sexual, or whatever - look around you) today or historically. This is not making an excuse, just pointing out that the United States of America doesn't have a monopoly in horrifically bad deeds. Minorities are being slaughtered in the middle-east and Africa as we speak, and yet our real outrage in America is over far more trivial things.

The issue with regard to discrimination and racial quotas and other things designed to "fix" past abuses, is that there has to be a legitimate discussion as to when such quotas and fixes should end. And there are two scenarios where such things as "affirmative action" should be examined and evaluated and possibly retired.

The first is where they are no longer needed. I am not saying this is today, or even tomorrow. But eventually, if these programs work as intended then there should come a time when they are no longer needed - by definition. This is not an emotional argument, or a racial argument, but just a logical one. In 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years, eventually there should be racial equality by dint of races perhaps disappearing due to interbreeding. At such a time, racial preferences shouldn't be required, right?

But to even ask this question is to be called a racist - mostly by white liberals, ironically, who tend to think emotionally and thus think they are being egalitarian by castigating anyone they think isn't politically correct. But there has to be an end game to affirmative action or other racial quotas, and it is a perfectly legitimate thing to argue when this should happen as opposed to just saying that one is not allow to even discuss it.

And speaking of which, we are not even allowed to discuss whether affirmative action does equate to racial quotas. Wacky Liberals shout "these are not quotas!" but then don't provide a logical, cogent argument as to why setting aside a certain number of seats isn't a quota. Again, even trying to discuss the issue is to be called a racist - and that is not constructive.

The second scenario where racial preferences, quotas, or affirmative action might be abolished, is if they are shown not to work. Again, this is an issue to discuss not a conclusion. One could make valid arguments that affirmative action has worked to improve equal access in our country. And those may be valid arguments - go ahead and make them. However, the opposing side is not allowed to even raise the issue without being shouted down as racist. This is not intellectual thinking, it is dogmatic ideology.

We should have a healthy discussion as to whether things like affirmative action are working - and whether other things should be tried, or modified or whatever. Maybe something else would work better. For example, here's an idea - instead of cramming standardized tests down everyone's throat, why not provide a more level playing field for primary education, and encourage education among minorities? It seems to me that the real problem isn't setting aside a number of seats at Harvard for minorities, but rather getting enough qualified people to fill them. For some reason, we want to do set-asides at the college or job level, while not leveling the playing field at grade 7.

And if someone wants to embrace a "culture" that denigrates education, whose fault is that? Frankly, that is the thing that really has to change in America, if minorities are to advance.

And it is funny, once you become one of these "minority" groups, you can appreciate how the paternalistic thing works. Suddenly, you are viewed as "disadvantaged" or "damaged goods" and it is tempting to sign up for your quota of free swag. As a government contractor, I can list myself as a "disadvantaged minority business" or some such nonsense. I choose not to.

It is also funny when people come up to you and, trying to be supportive, say things like, "Well, I support gay marriage!" and then get upset when you tell them you don't. You can appreciate how black conservatives feel when White Liberals call them "Uncle Toms" - they are not allowed to think for themselves, and if they disagree with Wacky Liberalism, then obviously they are just toadies for the man.

And you see this all the time, too, with these racially charged incidents, whether it is Ferguson or Treyon Martin - events with ambiguous evidence and murky circumstances, and no one party being clearly 100% innocent or guilty. Yet Wacky Liberals always immediately assume that the black person was right and the white person was wrong - there are literally no shades of grey here (and that is no pun!). It is like with the homeless - they are all saints and we are all sinners. End of discussion.

And this is extended to even less important matters. Someone says a wrong word or does a wrong deed, and if they stepped on a cultural landmine, well they are toast. Forgiveness and rehabilitation are out - and once again, these things are not even up for discussion.

And that's what irks me - that people just want to shut down discussion, rather than raise a cogent argument.

* * *

The common denominator of these three issues is that they are social hot-buttons. Just by making this post, I am sure some whack-job will flame me calling me a heartless racist bastard - likely without actually reading all that I have written. They will scan a few lines and go "hrump! He isn't following the party line here! Someone needs to be taken to task!"

So what's the danger of Wacky Liberalism? Well, Wacky Liberals will derail real Liberalism in two ways. First, since nothing any regular Democrat does is "liberal enough' for them, they will shout down any candidate or elected official and refuse to vote or provide financial support. Wacky Liberals abandoned Bill Clinton and Barack Obama because they thought they were too conservative. I guess they think Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz are more to the left?

Because those are your choices - the Democrat or the Republican. But Wacky Liberals - like Wacky Conservatives, love to support "spoiler" third party candidates, like Ralph Nader (who got Bush elected) and Ross Perot (who got Clinton elected).

This does not bode well for Hillary Clinton, who is actually quite conservative. This is what scares me - that the Wacky Liberals are getting louder and louder, and shouting down moderate Democrats just as the tea partiers shouted down moderate Republicans (which nearly destroyed the party). During the primaries next year, the candidates will pander to the far left, and the election could go to the GOP.

THIS is what the Wacky Liberals have wrought!
Posted by Robert Platt Bell at 2:41 PM

# ? Dec 4, 2014 20:56

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

And we've all seen this firsthand. Someone has a sign that says, "I'm hungry, please help!" and you offer them food or offer to buy them food, and they refuse. "Just the money, thank you" they say. Because they are not so much hungry as they are just beggars, making a makeshift living off of your sympathy.

Either that, or they know that if you give them a poisoned sandwich their death will never be investigated.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 21:02

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

quote:

Since the response takes paragraphs and the supposition can be said in a sentence, then there is no point in examining the "hard" answer.

stopped reading when I got to this part and saw the rest of the post went on forever

"It would take too long for me to explain, but to summarize a quick answer, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"

# ? Dec 4, 2014 21:03

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

That entire article is a giant liberal strawman. It's very easy to refute arguments no one's making, dude.

Seriously, point me to one goddamn mainstream liberal who has made the argument that we should stop funding the humanities because that money would be better spent on "bums".

# ? Dec 4, 2014 21:46

Vogon Poet: Jun 18, 2004; Someone bought me this custom title because they think I kick ass at Photoshop. They happen to be right.

Vertical Lime posted:

I just posted this in the Right Wing media thread, but this is vintage NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/eric-garner-was-a-victim-of-himself-for-deciding-to-resist/

I'm actually related by blood to the author of this piece, which is fairly horrifying. I've seen a lot of his garbage over the years, but I was still honestly surprised that he stooped this low. The really funny thing? You see an article like that, and you know it's written at least in part to rile people up. He takes a lot of flak for things he writes and he seems to revel in it. But on more than one occasion he's thrown a temper tantrum on a family email list over fairly benign statements that were made in disagreement with him.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 22:02

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

quote:

Here's the real truth about homelessness: It will always be with us (Jesus even said this). We don't have the ey or the willpower to reopen mental hospitals and commit the more crazy of the homeless people to them. Ain't gonna happen. We don't have the money for all the rehab centers in the world, and rehab, by and large doesn't work - even though it costs a lot of dough.

I think all you can do is offer people who really want to change the opportunity to change, and let it go at that

As Jesus said: the poor you shall always have with you so give unto the rich with tax credits and say unto the poors that they deserve it for being so lazy.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 00:07

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Vogon Poet posted:

I'm actually related by blood to the author of this piece, which is fairly horrifying. I've seen a lot of his garbage over the years, but I was still honestly surprised that he stooped this low. The really funny thing? You see an article like that, and you know it's written at least in part to rile people up. He takes a lot of flak for things he writes and he seems to revel in it. But on more than one occasion he's thrown a temper tantrum on a family email list over fairly benign statements that were made in disagreement with him.

Dammit, there goes my remaining hope that he's a miserable lonely gently caress who never found anyone.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 00:15

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

Homelessness man, it's always gonna be there. We can't understand or eliminate it, it's just a natural force that comes and goes. Also, we totally understand it but a lot of people simply lack the empathy needed to take some money out of murdering people and put it into fixing the problem. Totally unfixable. Oh look, a Homeless Cloud hit me, now I am a homeless.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 01:53

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

It's like a fractal of awful, awful at every level of magnification

quote:

So if you really wanted to take an individual homeless person and get them out of homelessness, you'd have to get them sober, on their "meds", cleaned up (and get them to clean themselves daily), provide them with a bedroom and three meals a day, and then train them for a job. We used to call this institutionalization and we deemed it too expensive and inhumane.

And guess what? The homeless don't want that level of intervention. In fact, they don't want your busybody do-goody anything - just cash, please. Many prefer the life-under-a-bridge and being shitfaced or zonked out as much as possible. Since you can't force them to get sober and take their meds, well, you can't really change their behavior.

See we used to toss the poor into madhouses, until those whacko liberals said that the poor were "humans" like "you and me" and didn't deserve cruel treatment :jerkbag:

# ? Dec 5, 2014 02:26

CheesyDog: Jul 4, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

VitalSigns posted:

It's like a fractal of awful, awful at every level of magnification

See we used to toss the poor into madhouses, until those whacko liberals said that the poor were "humans" like "you and me" and didn't deserve cruel treatment

Reagan led deinstitutionalization but also failed to fund replacement community programs.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 17:38

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

# ? Dec 6, 2014 17:28

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Crazy is the default from this guy but this is just so bizzare and incoherent I had to post it. Apparently the reason people have dirty, nasty, depraved sex like rimjobs and blowjobs is because of feminism. Before feminism people only had missionary, lights-off, partially clothed sex which is obviously the most enjoyable kind.

Feminism and Sex: �Bad, Dumb, and Desperately Unfun and Unsexy�

quote:

WARNING: The following passage contains content of a sexual nature. Reader discretion advised.

Anna Merlan�s verdict on a destined-for-infamy scene in Girls can best be understood as a verdict on Lena Dunham�s feminist ethos.

Dunham�s ethos, in turn, can best be understood as an expression of the decadent cultural values of 21st-century �progressives�:

They are the Nowhere People � rootless, without loyalty to family, community or religious tradition, and thus �free� to create for themselves imagined identities and idiosyncratic belief systems. Although they usually think of themselves as unique individuals, they are really sheep in a herd, predictable and therefore ultimately boring. Any politics, as long as it�s not conservative politics; any religion as long as it�s not Christian religion; any sexuality as long as it�s not normal sexuality.

So when HBO provides a dishonest pervert like Lena Dunham a platform from which to promote these values, our objections and criticisms are automatically rejected as illegitimate if expressed in terms of our own preferences � Christian, conservative, normal.

Dunham deliberately degrades the most attractive actress on the show � Allison Williams, daughter of NBC News anchor Brian Williams � by depicting her engaged in a shameful (to say nothing of unhealthy) kind of depraved sexual activity, and why? Because it is necessary, in the feminist mind, to believe that human beings are incapable of finding pleasure in sex that is healthy, wholesome and consistent with traditional morality. A husband and wife happily having normal intercourse together? This is impossible, according to feminist theory, which construes heterosexual love is inherently oppressive to women.

�Male sexual violence against women and �normal� heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes. . . . There are numerous examples of ways that heterosexual practice establishes male domination in women�s most private and personal spheres. . . . Men see women as objects for their sexual gratification.�
� Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men�s Violence, and Women�s Lives (1994)

Heterosexual intercourse � note how Professor Graham placed �normal� inside scare-quotes � is a horrific experience inflicted on women through �male domination,� you see. If a male obtains �sexual gratification� from a woman through �heterosexual practice,� this means she has been victimized by his �sexual violence.�

Feminism�s implacable hostility to marriage and motherhood � especially as these institutions are understood by Christians � inevitably produces a rhetoric that is anti-male and anti-heterosexual. Male sexuality must be demonized, and women�s universal victimhood asserted, in order to justify the feminist project of destroying the basic institutions our society. The feminist rhetoric of �gender,� aimed at subverting our normal understanding of masculinity and femininity, is an integral part of this project. Normal women prefer masculine men and normal men prefer feminine women. Therefore, if feminists can teach young people to reject their normal �gender roles� by teaching them that these roles are oppressive, this androgynous �equality� will make it more difficult for young people to form normal relationships as adults.

�Social constructions of gender, like power, stem from patriarchal ideologies . . .
�Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex . . . and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture. The hierarchy that implicitly positions men above women due to reproductive difference, is a harmful one.�

� Amy Austin, �Patriarchy and the Problem of Being Born Female,� Aug. 9, 2014

Parents who wish their children to be successful and happy adults, and who therefore encourage boys to be masculine and girls to feminine, are seen by feminists as part of a system that oppresses unhappy weirdos and miserable failures. In order to satisfy the resentments of unattractive women, the normal admiration of beauty must be prohibited � the �male gaze� reduces females to being �sex objects.� In order to compensate unhappy women for their personal failures, male achievement must be derogated as social injustice � men�s success is presumed to be unfairly obtained through discrimination against women.

These feminist beliefs serve the function of telling unhappy women that they are never responsible for their own unhappiness, and the propagation of this belief system provides career opportunities for women like Lena Dunham whose only claim to fame is her devotion to feminist ideology. No matter how wretched Girls may be � it�s supposed to be a �comedy� � critics feel obligated to praise it, because Dunham presents herself as a feminist and the show�s themes are therefore interpreted as feminist messages, even if this involves the celebration of Allison Williams getting a �desperately unfun� rimjob.

The editors of Huffington Post are required to heap unmerited praise on �the incisive, witty and hilarious dialogue that Dunham and the rest of her writing team come up with every week,� and cite as examples these lines from the first episode of the HBO show�s fourth season:

Hannah on preparing to move: �I don�t usually pack. I usually leave my crap in a pile and hope it makes it to where I�m going.�

Shosh on life after college: �I finished my degree. And now I�m just in the world, trying to get �er done.�

How incisive! How witty! How hilarious! Between this alleged brilliance and Allison Williams getting a rimjob, we can expect Lena Dunham to collect another pile of Emmy Awards for Girls.

No one can be permitted to criticize this phenomenon as what it actually is � a deliberately perverse insult to our sense of human decency � because telling the truth about feminism is a hate crime.

There seems to be a link between insane ideology and being incapable of writing like a normal human being. I love how he mentions use of "scare quotes" seemingly oblivious to the fact that he apparently can't go an entire paragraph without haphazardly inserting them somewhere.

MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Jan 14, 2015

# ? Jan 14, 2015 22:16

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

MaxxBot posted:

Crazy is the default from this guy but this is just so bizzare and incoherent I had to post it. Apparently the reason people have dirty, nasty, depraved sex like rimjobs and blowjobs is because of feminism. Before feminism people only had missionary, lights-off, partially clothed sex which is obviously the most enjoyable kind.

Feminism and Sex: ‘Bad, Dumb, and Desperately Unfun and Unsexy’

Whoa, like something straight out of hellthread. I even followed the link just to make sure it wasnt.

# ? Jan 14, 2015 22:26

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

He's also disgusted by the idea of a white person dating a black person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stacy_McCain#Controversy

quote:

[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

For some reason, the original article has been taken down.

# ? Jan 14, 2015 22:49

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Jack Gladney posted:

He's also disgusted by the idea of a white person dating a black person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stacy_McCain#Controversy

For some reason, the original article has been taken down.

All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement.

but it's NOT RACISM

# ? Jan 15, 2015 00:54

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Jack Gladney posted:

He's also disgusted by the idea of a white person dating a black person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stacy_McCain#Controversy

For some reason, the original article has been taken down.

Something about one person holding both those opinions makes me wonder...

http://theothermccain.com/2014/10/16/the-gamergate-hate-hoax/

quote:

Thursday, the feminists got themselves a front-page puff-piece in theÂ New York Times, after Sarkeesian cancelled a university speech in Utah claiming she felt unsafe because of a threat.Â Click here to see the threat. You tell me if that looks legit. It looks phony as hell to me, but here’s the thing:Â I DON’T CARE IF IT’S REAL OR FAKE.

What’s important to me is that we learn the truth. I want an all-out law-enforcement investigation of these threats, I want some arrests and prosecutions, and I want to know the names of the responsible parties, because I’m sick and tired of this bullshit aboutÂ “Oh, we’re courageous feminists and people say mean things about us on the Internet! Help! Help! We’re victims!”

People say mean things about me on the Internet every day, but that’s not a front-page story in theÂ New York Times, is it?

Of course. :roflolmao:

E: The comments immediately derail to defending the 2nd ammendment.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 15, 2015

# ? Jan 15, 2015 01:31

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

MaxxBot posted:

Crazy is the default from this guy but this is just so bizzare and incoherent I had to post it. Apparently the reason people have dirty, nasty, depraved sex like rimjobs and blowjobs is because of feminism. Before feminism people only had missionary, lights-off, partially clothed sex which is obviously the most enjoyable kind.

Girls is such a good honey-pot/litmus test for insanity. There's a lot you can write that would be negative about the show, and it's not like it would even be that hard. The show is sometimes stunningly awful in the most creative of ways, but you get the sense that maybe the way you're enjoying it is not the way Lena Dunham intended. Crazy people and misogynists just can't help themselves, though, and go off into the wilderness in their critiques of it.

# ? Jan 20, 2015 05:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 20:53

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

ErIog posted:

Girls is such a good honey-pot/litmus test for insanity. There's a lot you can write that would be negative about the show, and it's not like it would even be that hard. The show is sometimes stunningly awful in the most creative of ways, but you get the sense that maybe the way you're enjoying it is not the way Lena Dunham intended. Crazy people and misogynists just can't help themselves, though, and go off into the wilderness in their critiques of it.

I can't imagine the confusion he must have had to see the negro Donald Glover play a republican having sexual relations with the white but debauched liberal Lena Dunham.

# ? Jan 20, 2015 10:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »