This happens to me a lot, and I'm sure to some of you as well, someone says something that makes me think, or even say "Well that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard." This made me start to wonder, what are the dumbest things I've ever heard someone say? If I'm going to claim something is among the dumbest to have ever assaulted my ears, I've got to have some kind of solid basis for comparison, right? So I decided to put together an "official" list.
Now, these can't just be things that are stupid by way of being blatantly untrue like, "The Moon doesn't really exist," these have to be things I have actually heard people say. People, not person, people, as in: more than one. These are things that people say and actually believe, but fail on a basic level of logic that requires a person to reject reason and deny fact in order to continue believing. Rejecting reason and denying fact are, as you should know since you're here, cornerstone symptoms of Stupid, the disease this blog was created to raise awareness of.
In that spirit of raising awareness I'm not just going to list these things, we're going to get into how it's symptomatic of Stupid to help you recognize those symptoms when they present in different situations and act accordingly. We'll start with a general paraphrase to make easier recognition in the wild and then get into the examination. Now, in no particular order, these are the top 10 stupidest things I've heard:
1) "I don't see any difference between High Definition (HD) and Standard Definition (SD)"
With HD and upscaling technologies becoming ubiquitous this one has largely started to die out. But I'll be damned if it doesn't still pop up now and again. It seems to come from a few places: people are watching on a big ol' (in as literal a sense as that expression can muster) CRT set, not realizing that no matter how HD the content is, the TV lacks the physical pieces, pixels in this case, to display anything higher than a 640 across by 480 pixels tall image. Of course you don't see a difference, there isn't one!
The other problem is people watching on a combination of too small and too far away. Watch a video on youtube (this one's fun) in 480p, 720p and 1080p. You can see the difference because it's on a screen capable of at least 720p and within a few feet of your face. The farther from the screen you get the larger it's going to need to be for you to see the difference between resolutions simply because your eye can't make out that much detail to being with. So if you're not watching on a fairly large (32"+) TV and/or sitting really close to it of course you can't tell the difference between SD and HD, you're doing it wrong.
2) "The Xbox 360 has a way larger, better library of games than the PS3"
Better may be subjective, but larger is not and when it comes to this particular case larger really is a core component of better. In previous generations of consoles (I'm coming from roughly NES onward) the much higher prevalence of "exclusives," games on only one system, made taste and preference a much bigger factor in which system was "better". Modern games require a lot more money to make and need to sell a lot more copies to be profitable so the company can make the next game, which means they generally get released an as many systems as possible. This led to a generation where games were only exclusive to one system if there was heavy involvement from the company that produced the console.
This is how Sony managed to produce so many exclusive titles for their system, they own a lot of studios. Microsoft focused on creating and perfecting a handful of exclusive franchises while trying to make their platform attractive to developers by offering oodles of support. Sony focused on creating as many new franchises and exclusive entries as they could, while largely leaving other developers to do their own thing, as part of their effort to attract as many and different types of customers as possible. Which type of approach is more appealing, or "better," is debatable and a matter of personal preference, which company has a larger number of games available on their system is not. They are numbers, you can't argue whether or not 12 is bigger than 4 (not the actual numbers), that's just stupid.
3) "Getting punched in the boob/face/etc. is the same as getting punched in the testicles"
Holy mother of God, no. Listen, ladies, and we know you're the only ones I have to talk to, ALL guys know better, until you've given birth or had some kind of extreme accident, there's little chance you have any idea how much it hurts to take a shot in the potatoes. I have broken my hand, torn muscles in my thigh, taken an aluminum bat to the back of the head, had a thrown horseshoe split my shin open, and bitten clean through my tongue, none of those things hurt as bad as a solid hit in the balls.
I know what it's like to get punched in the face. If I put on a few pounds I could know what it's like to get punched in the boob, almost all the feeling for both the male and female breast is in the nipple anyway. Again, nowhere near as bad as taking one in the boys. Those little fuckers are deeply tangled up with our nervous systems. A hard hit and we're going down, there's no choice about it, like closing your eyes when sneezing. Hard enough, and that doesn't really need to be that hard, you'll be lucky not to vomit.
No matter how much you think it's fun and games, saying "I'll hit you in the jewels," is like him saying "I'll snap both your arms in half." Not. Cool. NO.
4) "Placing the tax burden on the middle class and letting the wealthiest people keep the majority of the wealth means more money for everybody!/Anything about trickle-down economics"
What can I even say about this that hasn't been said by every intelligent person without a personal interest in this system? There's simply no logic to it. Not only would basic reason tell you that someone with a lot of money generally doesn't like to let go of their money, decades of evidence have shown that this system does not have any kind of economic benefit to anyone but the people that already have way more than they need anyway. In a beautifully naive utopia in which everyone was generous and altruistic it's a great system that allows the best of the best to rise to the top. In practice it's an easily manipulated set of loopholes that allows a lucky few (ok, and a handful of genuinely talented, hardworking people) to distribute all the wealth to whomever of their friends and family they see fit.
The government needs money to run, to have that military we're all so proud of/ashamed of/angry at, and to keep our public schools limping along, and keep the country just...you know... running. Taxes are how you collect this money. The people with the most money have the most money to spare, the rest need it (in varying amounts) to buy food and shelter. Good for you that you can buy yourself an island and live by an entirely different set of rules, but don't claim you're somehow doing it for everyone else's benefit.
5) "Allowing homosexuals to marry destroys the sanctity of marriage!"
It has never been explained how it does this, no follow-up of supporting evidence. Is it that ceremony that's being tainted? They're tainting your ceremony? Who said it was yours? So what if the marriage in your religion doesn't include homosexuals, or even says that being homosexual is wrong? Clearly that's not their religion and they are the ones getting married. You can't force them to live by your religions standards either, this is America, we have separation of church and state for precisely that reason, so it's got nothing to do with you, fuck off.
And how does two people of the same sex getting a new tax status ruin it for everyone? You all still get to enjoy the same legal benefits whether or not there's a homosexual couple in your little club. That's the key here, the legal side of things. That's all that making gay marriage illegal prevents. All the ceremony and symbolism happens regardless, it's two people showing that they love each other, you really can't stop that from happening with legislation. I think Aziz Ansari said it best "You just don't like gay people and you're trying to stick it to 'em."
6) "Marijuana is bad for you/causes cancer/will ruin your life and kill you and/or should be illegal"
It's gonna be hard to keep this one short, but I'll try. Dating back to the 1930's when marijuana was first made illegal on a federal level, there has never been any legitimate medical test or clinical study showing marijuana to have any kind of long-term negative effect on a person's health. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Absolutely none. Whatsoever.
What's more, is that mountains of research has shown marijuana to have susbstantially positive effects not only on patients afflicted with numerous ailments like nausea and cancer (side note: THC will actively attack and destroy tumors, it literally cures cancer) but can act as a preventative for things like cancer.
But the real kicker is the number of readily available, legal substances that have harmful, long-term effects. Anytime someone that opposes marijuana has a drink of alcohol, or smokes tobacco, or takes a vicodin, or drinks caffeine, or eats fast food, they're proving the non-existant health issues with marijuana aren't really why they're against it. No, they've moved beyond the ignorance of not knowing the truth about marijuana to hating it just because and subsequently supporting a mindset created by racism and corporate greed.
7) "Playing video games promotes violent behavior"
It's amazing how this keeps popping up. I thought we, as a people, would have moved on to another scapegoat by now. Did music and movies play the role for this long?
Any time some new study pops up that proves, indicates, insinuates or sharts that video games promote violent behavior, it's results and testing methodology are immediately ripped apart by any proper research group or institution that happens to come across it. It's a ridiculous blanket statement with no basis designed to give bad parents and a broken mental health care system something to blame.
8) "I can't wait to spend $700 and wait in line for 5 hours to get Apple's new iThing!"
Oh Apple, how I hate thee. Seriously, though, I really don't like Apple. Their unethical business practices run the gamut from using conflict minerals in their products to using patent warfare against competitors they can't overcome to absurd profit margins on every product they sell (i.e. there's a gigantic discrepancy between what you paid for your iThing and what it cost to make, far more so than almost every single other competing product) it's just... the epitome of the comically evil corporation limply trying to play nice in the public eye.
What really brings up the bile though, is how mindlessly (emphasis on the mindlessly) excited the fanboys get about every new Apple product. You tell them that the Fown by Nokiasungarola is already out, has a much better screen, camera, processor, memory, data speeds, speaker, microphone, can be configured to look and act absolutely any way they want, even identical to an iPhone interface and costs $300 less yet they don't care, somehow the iPhone 6t is still "better" in some unquantifiable way and they must stand in line outside a store for 4 days as though that's the only way to get one. You're supporting an evil company (that thinks you're stupid, by the way) by paying way too much for outdated hardware with locked down software that will be double-outdated in 6 months! (No wonder they think you're stupid) And you're jumping up and down in everyone's faces shouting about how excited you are to do so. Stop it!
9) "Sarah Palin is great/smart/a qualified politician."
How much has this terminal case made an appearance here now? This is not Democrat/Republican thing. It's not a Conservative/Liberal thing. It's a smart/dumb thing. Sarah Palin has no significant political experience and proved time and time again that she also has no political knowledge to make up for that lack of experience. She has a worse grasp of history, economics and foreign policy than I did in the 6th grade. This is not an exaggeration, and her numerous errors when talking to the media were not just her getting picked on, she didn't know what to say because she doesn't know anything about what an actual politician does.
Palin was picked by the Republicans to try and capture the female vote from Hilary supporters, and had her sex appeal used to attract male voters while down-homey speech and ass-kissing were used to try and appeal to the dumbasses. It was an all-around sexist, insulting move and the fact that the Republicans didn't go "oh hell no!" was the first big step toward crazy town that resulted in "tea party" congressman and debacles like "legitimate rape."
If you really need further evidence that this inept moron has no business playing politics, consider this: after the Vice President thing didn't happen she started starring in reality tv shows.
10) "Video games are not, and can never be, art."
This is a real whopper. This is stupid on a critical level. It's stupid to make such a broad statement about any medium, not just video games, but video games seem to be the popular one to pick on. Probably because of the reaction it gets, which I'm clearly contributing to, but...fuck it, that's just too stupid not to be addressed.
Laying down a blanket statement like that is inherently stupid mostly because the definition of art is so malleable. Art is an expression, a thought, a story. Art is something the artist wanted to share in a way that felt natural. Not all video games are artistic, not all of them are trying to be, some just want to entertain. The same is true for movies, or books, or comic books. This doesn't mean that none of those things are art. It doesn't mean that all of them are art, though it's possible that in someone's eyes they are. The point is to look at them first though.
That's where the problem seems to come in, these statements are being made by people that don't play video games. It's easy to spot this when their reasoning for games not to fit doesn't hold up against reality. There's always comparisons to games like chess or football. While the art of either of those could be argued, neither is a comparison to all of video games. Video games or not simply meant to be played and won like chess or football, they're meant to be experienced. They can tell a story, show you beautiful sights and sounds, create attachment to characters and draw you into their world as deeply as any film or novel. There's allegory and symbolism, questions that challenge your morals and sense of ethics, explorations of what it means to be human, or young, or in love, or scared, or sad, or angry there is absolutely anything you can think of. Because it's made by people. People make art. It's what we do. When we're not being fucking stupid, anyway.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Hell No, I Won't Go... to the Polls
This has been mentioned in passing before, but this time we're going to get into my issues with the system as a whole, rather than just my issues with the Electoral College...although we'll cover those too, obviously. Although I can understand the interpretation as such, my disgust with the voting process extends well beyond the simple "My vote doesn't count in the end, so why bother?" flavor of apathy I associate with living in a definitively "red" or "blue" state. I understand that the system works well enough that only twice since it's inception has the electoral vote disagreed with the popular vote, it is a good system. My issue is that this system's intended purpose is inherently flawed by way of playing into a much larger, more flawed system so effectively. Take your "best case scenario" of living in a swing state where a vote could actually make a difference between one of two people as the future leader of our country. Why is it only one of two people!? There are so many candidates that run, yet every state is either red or blue when the big map goes up on the screen.
The electoral system plays into a party system and the entire party system seems designed to distill candidates down into two big droplets on the American attention span with one sticking briefly before they all fall back into a pool of "they're all the same"ness. That's my sticking point though, they, the political parties, are all the same. A Democracy is defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. A Republic is defined as a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. These are our two major parties; read as: the only ones with an actual shot at winning. Those of you saying "hey wait, it means something different in this context though..." yeah...no, sorry but fuck you, it really doesn't.
We identify the Republican party as the more conservative party just as we view the Democrats as the more liberal, but these are completely malleable alignments. If you go back as little as to the early 1960's, these ideologies were flipped. That's right, the Dems were the conservative ones while the Reps took up the liberal saber. This. Shit. Is. Completely. Arbitrary. How many people identify themselves as Democrat or Republican but end up disagreeing with more of their "party's" ideals than agree with them? Fuck if I know, but it's probably around the same number of party members that disagree with more ideals and stances of their party's chosen representative than agree with them. So why still march under those banners? Because you have to pick a side...?
In order to vote you must register, and when you register you do so as a Democrat, Republican or Independent. Yup. There's apparently Democrat, Republican and Everything Else. Think of the effect just knowing that has on the average vote; the "Independents" are so hopeless and insignificant that they all have to share an identity as a party. So because the voter knows this, he or she "knows" that the best case scenario when voting for an independent is that neither the Republican nor Democrat will get a vote. What we get is voters who may have voted for another candidate voting for one that's "close enough" because the perception is that only one of two parties can actually win. But then if you don't happen to live in a swing state, not voting at all is going to have just as much effect as anything else on which candidate your state actually "counts" toward. So even most people that "get out and vote" are aware, to some extent, that their vote is largely meaningless. Whether or not you can even register to vote is just as, if not more, arbitrary.
They say that with age comes wisdom, but I say that wisdom comes to some a little faster than to others. I've known plenty of sub-18 year-olds with a better handle on what each candidate actually has planned for their time in office than the people deemed mature enough to have a say in whose plan gets to be executed. If you're going to impose restrictions on such an important decision, can we at least have them achieve some modicum of reasoned thought? Instead of just "Yup, you're old enough, go ahead and pick the name from this list" how about "Write me an essay explaining why you agree with your chosen candidate and their plan for our country." That way if 14-year-old Billy wants to vote for Randy Republican because he agrees with that specific candidates plan for our military, economy, healthcare, foreign policy, and/or etc. his vote gets thrown on the pile. If 42-year-old Sally wants to vote for Leo Liberal because he believes in America and that Randy wants to destroy America however it's "I'm sorry ma'am, please try again." Because too many people vote for a candidate just because s/he's a Republican, or a woman, or white, or friendlier or more attractive. Take as much time and as many attempts as you need, but put forth the effort to educate yourself about the decision. This is a decision that, under absolutely optimal circumstances, affects the future of every man woman and child in the country, you'd better know exactly what it is you're actually deciding.
While we're at it, stop with the parties. It's a mental game that only clutters up what should be a smooth, straightforward process of choosing the individual person that is going to take office. You are not electing a whole party, as we already discussed, these fuckers can't even agree with themselves so stop lumping them all together and claiming it's for my benefit. If you create a system that not only gives prideworthy weight to each citizens vote, but also allows any citizen to honestly express their choice in leader you get voters that are educated about how the system works from the formerly ignorant, disinterested or just plain disgusted individuals muddying it up.
But we don't have that system, which is why I'll be the disgusted fleck of dirt clinging to the side until someone with the power says "Hey, maybe we should try and clean this shit up so it works better, huh?"
The electoral system plays into a party system and the entire party system seems designed to distill candidates down into two big droplets on the American attention span with one sticking briefly before they all fall back into a pool of "they're all the same"ness. That's my sticking point though, they, the political parties, are all the same. A Democracy is defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. A Republic is defined as a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. These are our two major parties; read as: the only ones with an actual shot at winning. Those of you saying "hey wait, it means something different in this context though..." yeah...no, sorry but fuck you, it really doesn't.
We identify the Republican party as the more conservative party just as we view the Democrats as the more liberal, but these are completely malleable alignments. If you go back as little as to the early 1960's, these ideologies were flipped. That's right, the Dems were the conservative ones while the Reps took up the liberal saber. This. Shit. Is. Completely. Arbitrary. How many people identify themselves as Democrat or Republican but end up disagreeing with more of their "party's" ideals than agree with them? Fuck if I know, but it's probably around the same number of party members that disagree with more ideals and stances of their party's chosen representative than agree with them. So why still march under those banners? Because you have to pick a side...?
In order to vote you must register, and when you register you do so as a Democrat, Republican or Independent. Yup. There's apparently Democrat, Republican and Everything Else. Think of the effect just knowing that has on the average vote; the "Independents" are so hopeless and insignificant that they all have to share an identity as a party. So because the voter knows this, he or she "knows" that the best case scenario when voting for an independent is that neither the Republican nor Democrat will get a vote. What we get is voters who may have voted for another candidate voting for one that's "close enough" because the perception is that only one of two parties can actually win. But then if you don't happen to live in a swing state, not voting at all is going to have just as much effect as anything else on which candidate your state actually "counts" toward. So even most people that "get out and vote" are aware, to some extent, that their vote is largely meaningless. Whether or not you can even register to vote is just as, if not more, arbitrary.
They say that with age comes wisdom, but I say that wisdom comes to some a little faster than to others. I've known plenty of sub-18 year-olds with a better handle on what each candidate actually has planned for their time in office than the people deemed mature enough to have a say in whose plan gets to be executed. If you're going to impose restrictions on such an important decision, can we at least have them achieve some modicum of reasoned thought? Instead of just "Yup, you're old enough, go ahead and pick the name from this list" how about "Write me an essay explaining why you agree with your chosen candidate and their plan for our country." That way if 14-year-old Billy wants to vote for Randy Republican because he agrees with that specific candidates plan for our military, economy, healthcare, foreign policy, and/or etc. his vote gets thrown on the pile. If 42-year-old Sally wants to vote for Leo Liberal because he believes in America and that Randy wants to destroy America however it's "I'm sorry ma'am, please try again." Because too many people vote for a candidate just because s/he's a Republican, or a woman, or white, or friendlier or more attractive. Take as much time and as many attempts as you need, but put forth the effort to educate yourself about the decision. This is a decision that, under absolutely optimal circumstances, affects the future of every man woman and child in the country, you'd better know exactly what it is you're actually deciding.
While we're at it, stop with the parties. It's a mental game that only clutters up what should be a smooth, straightforward process of choosing the individual person that is going to take office. You are not electing a whole party, as we already discussed, these fuckers can't even agree with themselves so stop lumping them all together and claiming it's for my benefit. If you create a system that not only gives prideworthy weight to each citizens vote, but also allows any citizen to honestly express their choice in leader you get voters that are educated about how the system works from the formerly ignorant, disinterested or just plain disgusted individuals muddying it up.
But we don't have that system, which is why I'll be the disgusted fleck of dirt clinging to the side until someone with the power says "Hey, maybe we should try and clean this shit up so it works better, huh?"
Monday, March 12, 2012
Why America Is Broken And Why it's Not Up To The Middle Class To Fix It
It seemed about time that Stupid weighed in on the issues of wealth imbalance and class warfare in this country. With the issue at the forefront of so many Americans minds it has reached a boiling point that many are so fearful of that some individuals on one side of the argument have even started creating government legislation that helps protect them from action taken by the opposing side. This issue may very well determine whether American can continue on as a country or a radical revolution takes place. It is also an issue that seems to be caused by a widespread infection of the horrible disease known as Stupid.
Whether it's someone speaking on Fox News, facebook or right in front of me, I have heard the argument that the middle and lower class "Just hate the wealthy due to jealousy of their wealth" using almost those exact words. This is a mind-boggling statement that appears symptomatic of a Limbaugh-Palin level infection of Stupid. This is not why we hate you, at all. Even saying that we hate you is a bit much. We are disappointed in, or even disgusted by the way that you use that wealth.
The problem is not that the top 1% of income earners in this country have so much, it's that they don't use that money well. Rather than being put to use pushing mankind forward as a society, it is hoarded and spent on status symbols that serve only as a way to prove to the rest of the world how much money you have. Money is the lifeblood of economy, a system that has gradually replaced natural selection as a way to determine which members of the species survive, it is NOT meant to be used as a trophy. If money had not take the place of natural selection and we lived in a world where people's survival was based solely on their ability to collect enough food to survive would we still allow a small group of people to hoard food that they don't need or will ever use while others starved to death?
I'm not saying that all poor people are saints, some of them made poor decisions that led them to that state, but entirely too many of them were forced there by something completely out of their control. Allowing these people (and, I would think, any human being) to be unjustly punished and left to die and other miserable fates is wrong. If you disagree with THAT, then you need to do a serious re-evaluation of your moral priorities. I'm also not claiming that all rich people are heartless hoarders. There are some truly good people of great wealth, like Bill Gates, who want to pay higher taxes because they understand that they have more money that is necessary for them to live at whatever level of comfort they want. (Sidebar: This is especially ironic when you consider how vilified Bill Gates generally is in the public compared to Steve Jobs, who was very vocal about his belief that he was being forced to pay too much in taxes despite the significantly higher profit margin for Apple products compared to Microsoft products [Think about that for a minute and ask yourself if you believe in Karma]) But that's just it, the good people, who perpetrate none of the offenses I name in my original statement, are not applicable to it. So bringing them up as some kind of proof that the whole argument is wrong fails on a very basic level of constructing a proper counterpoint.
I'm a fairly simple guy that doesn't require much to live comfortably. Give me a clean space to live that's large enough to hold my bed and all my video game/computer equipment, because that's my passion and a necessary component of my career, and I'm a happy man. The sub-30k salary I collect per year is just barely enough to do this, with some skillful juggling. I understand that different people have different lifestyles that require greater or lesser amounts of wealth to maintain. The problem is with the people that feel the need to collect so much wealth that they can't use even half of it without inventing new ways to do so (designer labels, limited editions, etc.) for the one and only purpose of displaying a certain social status to the rest of the world.
Money or wealth, despite being purely abstract concepts (a whole other argument I don't have time for), are still more or less finite; if you add it to one place that means you have to take it from somewhere else. Taking it from somewhere else means taking it from someone else by pretty much whatever means necessary. All too often this means taking away a person's home, food, car, health, child and/or life. Let me be cleat: no person should EVER be forced to sacrifice any of these things for the sake of a person's social status, an abstract concept that contributes absolutely nothing to the progress or well-being of the human race.
The sad reality is that 40-50% of the wealth of the entire country is in the possession and control of only 1% of the population; i.e. this is a fact. That means that the wealth of the United States is divided into two groups that consist of "small handful of people" and "everyone else". This distribution of wealth is directly responsible for people being forced out of their homes and into the streets by circumstances completely beyond their control that are in no way their fault. This is morally, ethically, and in all other ways wrong. This small handful of people hoarding that wealth are in such denial of this that they refuse to try and rectify it in any way, whether that be to pay a greater share of the taxes or take a pay cut in order to preserve the jobs of hundreds or even thousands of their workers. Anyone that disagrees with this is in an equally ludicrous level of denial or simply to naive to be aware of how things really are.
I am of the belief that it is not the sole responsibility of the wealthy upper class to ensure people aren't unjustly forced from their homes and left to live as a destitute. My issue is that they don't seem to feel the same way in regard to the middle class, somehow believing it is up to us to fill the vacuum left in the lower classes by sharing the income that barely enables us to live a life already without luxury or excess. Someone needs to pick up the slack in order to save this country from facing either a collapse or a violent revolution, and it is truly a stupid person that believes it should be the middle class.
Whether it's someone speaking on Fox News, facebook or right in front of me, I have heard the argument that the middle and lower class "Just hate the wealthy due to jealousy of their wealth" using almost those exact words. This is a mind-boggling statement that appears symptomatic of a Limbaugh-Palin level infection of Stupid. This is not why we hate you, at all. Even saying that we hate you is a bit much. We are disappointed in, or even disgusted by the way that you use that wealth.
The problem is not that the top 1% of income earners in this country have so much, it's that they don't use that money well. Rather than being put to use pushing mankind forward as a society, it is hoarded and spent on status symbols that serve only as a way to prove to the rest of the world how much money you have. Money is the lifeblood of economy, a system that has gradually replaced natural selection as a way to determine which members of the species survive, it is NOT meant to be used as a trophy. If money had not take the place of natural selection and we lived in a world where people's survival was based solely on their ability to collect enough food to survive would we still allow a small group of people to hoard food that they don't need or will ever use while others starved to death?
I'm not saying that all poor people are saints, some of them made poor decisions that led them to that state, but entirely too many of them were forced there by something completely out of their control. Allowing these people (and, I would think, any human being) to be unjustly punished and left to die and other miserable fates is wrong. If you disagree with THAT, then you need to do a serious re-evaluation of your moral priorities. I'm also not claiming that all rich people are heartless hoarders. There are some truly good people of great wealth, like Bill Gates, who want to pay higher taxes because they understand that they have more money that is necessary for them to live at whatever level of comfort they want. (Sidebar: This is especially ironic when you consider how vilified Bill Gates generally is in the public compared to Steve Jobs, who was very vocal about his belief that he was being forced to pay too much in taxes despite the significantly higher profit margin for Apple products compared to Microsoft products [Think about that for a minute and ask yourself if you believe in Karma]) But that's just it, the good people, who perpetrate none of the offenses I name in my original statement, are not applicable to it. So bringing them up as some kind of proof that the whole argument is wrong fails on a very basic level of constructing a proper counterpoint.
I'm a fairly simple guy that doesn't require much to live comfortably. Give me a clean space to live that's large enough to hold my bed and all my video game/computer equipment, because that's my passion and a necessary component of my career, and I'm a happy man. The sub-30k salary I collect per year is just barely enough to do this, with some skillful juggling. I understand that different people have different lifestyles that require greater or lesser amounts of wealth to maintain. The problem is with the people that feel the need to collect so much wealth that they can't use even half of it without inventing new ways to do so (designer labels, limited editions, etc.) for the one and only purpose of displaying a certain social status to the rest of the world.
Money or wealth, despite being purely abstract concepts (a whole other argument I don't have time for), are still more or less finite; if you add it to one place that means you have to take it from somewhere else. Taking it from somewhere else means taking it from someone else by pretty much whatever means necessary. All too often this means taking away a person's home, food, car, health, child and/or life. Let me be cleat: no person should EVER be forced to sacrifice any of these things for the sake of a person's social status, an abstract concept that contributes absolutely nothing to the progress or well-being of the human race.
The sad reality is that 40-50% of the wealth of the entire country is in the possession and control of only 1% of the population; i.e. this is a fact. That means that the wealth of the United States is divided into two groups that consist of "small handful of people" and "everyone else". This distribution of wealth is directly responsible for people being forced out of their homes and into the streets by circumstances completely beyond their control that are in no way their fault. This is morally, ethically, and in all other ways wrong. This small handful of people hoarding that wealth are in such denial of this that they refuse to try and rectify it in any way, whether that be to pay a greater share of the taxes or take a pay cut in order to preserve the jobs of hundreds or even thousands of their workers. Anyone that disagrees with this is in an equally ludicrous level of denial or simply to naive to be aware of how things really are.
I am of the belief that it is not the sole responsibility of the wealthy upper class to ensure people aren't unjustly forced from their homes and left to live as a destitute. My issue is that they don't seem to feel the same way in regard to the middle class, somehow believing it is up to us to fill the vacuum left in the lower classes by sharing the income that barely enables us to live a life already without luxury or excess. Someone needs to pick up the slack in order to save this country from facing either a collapse or a violent revolution, and it is truly a stupid person that believes it should be the middle class.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Exclusive Parking
If there's one advantage to working an overnight shift in a hotel (besides the extra $1 per hour and the freedom to watch Psych on DVD) it's the opportunity to see just how prolific the Stupid epidemic has become. The disease rears it's moronic head most readily when the issue of parking arises.
For some unfathomable reason people seem to think that I have the ability to instantly manifest extra parking spaces. I can understand going to the desk and saying "There's no parking spaces left, where should I go?" to some extent as there may be some question about reserved spots and street parking. What I fail to understand is repeatedly asking "where am I supposed to go" as though the answer is going to change from "I'm apologize but you'll have to find a spot in the street," to "There's an available parking spot right in front of your room," if you just ask enough times or use enough volume.
On woman, who seemed to be suffering a particularly advanced case of Stupid, altered her tactic by asking if the hotel had any backup parking that I wasn't telling her about. Ahhh yes! The secret backup parking lot. The one cordoned off with velvet ropes that we only allow guests who know the password to use. That's why it wasn't mentioned any of the previous 7 times you asked me where to park, because you didn't say "parking sesame." It's very exclusive parking and you just don't look like the kind of clientele that we allow to use our secret lot. It's also guarded by a large bald man named Cliff who is armed with a clip-board and what I like to call "prisontude" so don't try anything sneaky.
Her symptoms seemed to advance further at that point, because she said, and I may be paraphrasing here for fear of infection (Stupid can be transmitted through the ear canal after all): "Do you understand how ridiculous this is? All you can tell me is I have to find a spot on the street? Can you at least tell me what the parking laws are?"
Ummm, if it says "No Parking" don't park there? Do you want to go find a spot, take a picture and then send it to me so I can tell you if it's OK to park? Do you understand how ridiculous this is? If someone has reached such an advanced stage of the disease that the concept of "parking lot full" is that far out of the realm of their comprehension, I highly recommend they take the prophylactic step of NOT REPRODUCING.
That is all.
For some unfathomable reason people seem to think that I have the ability to instantly manifest extra parking spaces. I can understand going to the desk and saying "There's no parking spaces left, where should I go?" to some extent as there may be some question about reserved spots and street parking. What I fail to understand is repeatedly asking "where am I supposed to go" as though the answer is going to change from "I'm apologize but you'll have to find a spot in the street," to "There's an available parking spot right in front of your room," if you just ask enough times or use enough volume.On woman, who seemed to be suffering a particularly advanced case of Stupid, altered her tactic by asking if the hotel had any backup parking that I wasn't telling her about. Ahhh yes! The secret backup parking lot. The one cordoned off with velvet ropes that we only allow guests who know the password to use. That's why it wasn't mentioned any of the previous 7 times you asked me where to park, because you didn't say "parking sesame." It's very exclusive parking and you just don't look like the kind of clientele that we allow to use our secret lot. It's also guarded by a large bald man named Cliff who is armed with a clip-board and what I like to call "prisontude" so don't try anything sneaky.
Her symptoms seemed to advance further at that point, because she said, and I may be paraphrasing here for fear of infection (Stupid can be transmitted through the ear canal after all): "Do you understand how ridiculous this is? All you can tell me is I have to find a spot on the street? Can you at least tell me what the parking laws are?"
Ummm, if it says "No Parking" don't park there? Do you want to go find a spot, take a picture and then send it to me so I can tell you if it's OK to park? Do you understand how ridiculous this is? If someone has reached such an advanced stage of the disease that the concept of "parking lot full" is that far out of the realm of their comprehension, I highly recommend they take the prophylactic step of NOT REPRODUCING.
That is all.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
More Bitching About Public Attitudes Towards Sex in the Media. Now With Homosexuality!
So I was just watching Harry Potter (the 5th one, if you must know) on TV and it got me thinking about the forthcoming final two movies in the series. No, you didn't miss a book, they divided the last book into two movies. This is not my point, however. What I really got into a froth about was Dumbeldore's revealed homosexuality by author J.K. Rowling after the conclusion of the series. I still see this statement as something of an attempt at a publicity grab by the author since no one knew this about Dumbledore until Rowling stated such; meaning that this aspect of the character clearly had no bearing on him or the story. HOWEVER, and this is a big damn however (notice the caps), this shows Rowling's talent as an author in her dedication to thoroughly defining her characters. Contradictory? Stay with me. I simply wish that Rowling had explored this to some extent within the books so that it would indisputably be considered canon rather than an "Oh, by the way..." after the series' conclusion. Especially because Dumbledore is such a magnificently virtuous character that also completely avoids any type of stereotypical characteristic often attributed to homosexual characters found in fiction of any medium. "Dumbledore is this character...that just happens to be gay. Now move along, dear reader." I think this could have done a lot for pushing forward the portrayal of homosexual characters in all forms of fiction.
Where the actual bitching comes in (the previous was just whining) is the reaction of certain members of the public to this assertion, primarily Christian groups. Side note: why is it that so many Christian groups use the guise of religous virtue in order to do and say some of the most offensive, bigoted things ever witnessed? (read: not the kind of things normally referred to as "being a good christian") For example:
Christian author Berit Kjos "[Dumbledore's sexuality] helps us show others that these books should not be used in the churches to illustrate Christianity. Because Dumbledore has been revealed as a homosexual, it helps me communicate my message"
Actually I tend to agree. Anything displaying both independent thinking and tolerance really shouldn't be used to "illustrate Christianity" because that's just false advertising.
Next up, Linda Harvey, president of Mission America: "Will we allow our kids to believe it would be perfectly appropriate for the headmaster of any school to be homosexual?"
My favorite part about this one is that the author asks the question as though the obvious answer is no, as in "No, it's not OK to be homosexual." I have to say, that's just Palinesque.
As stupid as that was, this next one may very well be my favorite.
Roberta Combs, President of the Christian Coalition of America: "It's very disappointing that the author would have to make one of the characters gay...It's not a good example for our children, who really like the books and the movies. It encourages homosexuality."
Ahh yes, the old assertion that being exposed to homosexuality encourages one to be homosexual. That's why straight parents never raise gay children, right? More importantly, remember all of 3 minutes ago when I rambled on about Dumbledore's homosexuality never coming up in any of the books or movies thus far? And about what an outstanding example of virtue and altruism the character is? So where's this example of an evil, child-corrupting homosexual that children are being exposed to through the books and movies? Nowhere, but since when did loudmouth zealots need something superfluous like evidence?
I'm not done though, this act of people who have likely never even read the books using them as ammunition for their thoroughly Palinesque agenda reminded me of the fate sexual content in video games often suffer, one instance in particular. I know I'm now in serious danger of simply echoing the last article I posted, but again I must ask that you stay with me.
Anyone remember Mass Effect? Hugely successful game, even more successful sequel that came out this year? Yeah, that's the one.
Well back when the game was first released there was a big hooplah over the fact that the game allowed characters the choice of engaging in a sexual relationship with another character. In particular a perceived lesbian relationship. Technically the relationship isn't lesbian in nature since one of the characters is neither male nor female, but that is entirely beside the point. What is the point is that one especially untalented Conservative writer, a Kevin McCullough, had a few things to say about this game that he never played or even saw. Let's have a look at some of his choice phrases now, shall we?
"It's called "Mass Effect" and it allows its players - universally male no doubt - to engage in the most realistic sex acts ever conceived. One can custom design the shape, form, bodies, race, hair style, breast size of the images they wish to "engage" and then watch in crystal clear, LCD, 54 inch screen, HD clarity as the video game "persons" hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of."
And because of the digital chip age in which we live - "Mass Effect" can be customized to sodomize whatever, whoever, however, the game player wishes.
With it's "over the net" capabilities virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away."
The important thing to remember is that NONE OF THIS EVEN APPROACHES ANYTHING THAT ATTEMPTS TO PRESENT ITSELF AS SOMETHING CLOSE TO RESEMBLING THE TRUTH. This cannot be emphasized enough. In fact, the article was so fallacious that the author later issued a completely half-hearted and backhanded apology. You can find that yourself if you really want to see. Even thinking about it brings the bile raised in the back of my throat by the previous article to dangerous levels. In fact, you can't even find the original article anymore, because the host site (uber-conservative townhall.com) took it down. Instead, clicking a link to the article brings you to a more or less blank page. The best part of all, is that not only does this king of the asshats have the influence to get an article so full of fabrications and outright lies published in the first place...he has a book. Wait so... I mean...and I can't get decent any kind of decent work as a writer? Are you kidding me? Am I being Punk'd? Where are the cameras?
In an effort to prove just how big and pungent a load of BS Asshat McDouchebags statements are, I will now show you a YouTube video of the ONE AND ONLY sex scene in Mass Effect. The only possible differences are in which characters are involved, nothing else changes. While the video is on YouTube, which does not allow nudity (hear that McCullough?) I will warn you that there is about 1 1/2 seconds of visible buttcrack and a brief glimpse of sideboob.
Also important to note: in order to even achieve the possibility of this scene, the player has to put in about 20-30 hours worth of work to develop the relationship. I know this because I have actually played the game, unlike the douchetool that inspired this particular aspect of this rant.
Although I really shouldn't be surprised at stuff like this making it's way into legitimate news publications when it's in a country that thinks like this.
Yes, apparently the depiction of "a man and woman having sex" is the most offensive thing to see in a video game, followed by "two men kissing" and then "the graphic depiction of a severed head." Think about that for a second. Let it sink in.
Now imagine this:
You're walking through the park, you see two men kissing. Assuming you even notice this, I doubt it would be very offensive. Unless of course your uber-conservative and/or homophobic.
Continuing on your walk, you see two people having sex. Odd...they are in public after all. You'd probably take more notice at this, maybe pull out your phone to take a quick pic or video to later show your friends and go "this was in the park, wtf? hahaha"
Moving on, you see a severed head sitting on a bench. What do you do? According to the poll, you should just shrug, and go "Sucks to be you." But it's more likely you'll scream and call the police.
So why do the rules change so much when these things happen in a movie or video game? If we ever find a way to tap into stupidity as an energy source, it looks like the conservative and "religious" asshats could keep the entire planet powered until our sun expands and destroys the planet. I doubt we'd even need to have an "off" switch on anything anymore...
Where the actual bitching comes in (the previous was just whining) is the reaction of certain members of the public to this assertion, primarily Christian groups. Side note: why is it that so many Christian groups use the guise of religous virtue in order to do and say some of the most offensive, bigoted things ever witnessed? (read: not the kind of things normally referred to as "being a good christian") For example:
Christian author Berit Kjos "[Dumbledore's sexuality] helps us show others that these books should not be used in the churches to illustrate Christianity. Because Dumbledore has been revealed as a homosexual, it helps me communicate my message"
Actually I tend to agree. Anything displaying both independent thinking and tolerance really shouldn't be used to "illustrate Christianity" because that's just false advertising.
Next up, Linda Harvey, president of Mission America: "Will we allow our kids to believe it would be perfectly appropriate for the headmaster of any school to be homosexual?"
My favorite part about this one is that the author asks the question as though the obvious answer is no, as in "No, it's not OK to be homosexual." I have to say, that's just Palinesque.
As stupid as that was, this next one may very well be my favorite.
Roberta Combs, President of the Christian Coalition of America: "It's very disappointing that the author would have to make one of the characters gay...It's not a good example for our children, who really like the books and the movies. It encourages homosexuality."
Ahh yes, the old assertion that being exposed to homosexuality encourages one to be homosexual. That's why straight parents never raise gay children, right? More importantly, remember all of 3 minutes ago when I rambled on about Dumbledore's homosexuality never coming up in any of the books or movies thus far? And about what an outstanding example of virtue and altruism the character is? So where's this example of an evil, child-corrupting homosexual that children are being exposed to through the books and movies? Nowhere, but since when did loudmouth zealots need something superfluous like evidence?
I'm not done though, this act of people who have likely never even read the books using them as ammunition for their thoroughly Palinesque agenda reminded me of the fate sexual content in video games often suffer, one instance in particular. I know I'm now in serious danger of simply echoing the last article I posted, but again I must ask that you stay with me.
Anyone remember Mass Effect? Hugely successful game, even more successful sequel that came out this year? Yeah, that's the one.
Well back when the game was first released there was a big hooplah over the fact that the game allowed characters the choice of engaging in a sexual relationship with another character. In particular a perceived lesbian relationship. Technically the relationship isn't lesbian in nature since one of the characters is neither male nor female, but that is entirely beside the point. What is the point is that one especially untalented Conservative writer, a Kevin McCullough, had a few things to say about this game that he never played or even saw. Let's have a look at some of his choice phrases now, shall we?
"It's called "Mass Effect" and it allows its players - universally male no doubt - to engage in the most realistic sex acts ever conceived. One can custom design the shape, form, bodies, race, hair style, breast size of the images they wish to "engage" and then watch in crystal clear, LCD, 54 inch screen, HD clarity as the video game "persons" hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of."
And because of the digital chip age in which we live - "Mass Effect" can be customized to sodomize whatever, whoever, however, the game player wishes.
With it's "over the net" capabilities virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away."
The important thing to remember is that NONE OF THIS EVEN APPROACHES ANYTHING THAT ATTEMPTS TO PRESENT ITSELF AS SOMETHING CLOSE TO RESEMBLING THE TRUTH. This cannot be emphasized enough. In fact, the article was so fallacious that the author later issued a completely half-hearted and backhanded apology. You can find that yourself if you really want to see. Even thinking about it brings the bile raised in the back of my throat by the previous article to dangerous levels. In fact, you can't even find the original article anymore, because the host site (uber-conservative townhall.com) took it down. Instead, clicking a link to the article brings you to a more or less blank page. The best part of all, is that not only does this king of the asshats have the influence to get an article so full of fabrications and outright lies published in the first place...he has a book. Wait so... I mean...and I can't get decent any kind of decent work as a writer? Are you kidding me? Am I being Punk'd? Where are the cameras?
In an effort to prove just how big and pungent a load of BS Asshat McDouchebags statements are, I will now show you a YouTube video of the ONE AND ONLY sex scene in Mass Effect. The only possible differences are in which characters are involved, nothing else changes. While the video is on YouTube, which does not allow nudity (hear that McCullough?) I will warn you that there is about 1 1/2 seconds of visible buttcrack and a brief glimpse of sideboob.
Also important to note: in order to even achieve the possibility of this scene, the player has to put in about 20-30 hours worth of work to develop the relationship. I know this because I have actually played the game, unlike the douchetool that inspired this particular aspect of this rant.
Although I really shouldn't be surprised at stuff like this making it's way into legitimate news publications when it's in a country that thinks like this.
Yes, apparently the depiction of "a man and woman having sex" is the most offensive thing to see in a video game, followed by "two men kissing" and then "the graphic depiction of a severed head." Think about that for a second. Let it sink in.
Now imagine this:
You're walking through the park, you see two men kissing. Assuming you even notice this, I doubt it would be very offensive. Unless of course your uber-conservative and/or homophobic.
Continuing on your walk, you see two people having sex. Odd...they are in public after all. You'd probably take more notice at this, maybe pull out your phone to take a quick pic or video to later show your friends and go "this was in the park, wtf? hahaha"
Moving on, you see a severed head sitting on a bench. What do you do? According to the poll, you should just shrug, and go "Sucks to be you." But it's more likely you'll scream and call the police.
So why do the rules change so much when these things happen in a movie or video game? If we ever find a way to tap into stupidity as an energy source, it looks like the conservative and "religious" asshats could keep the entire planet powered until our sun expands and destroys the planet. I doubt we'd even need to have an "off" switch on anything anymore...
Monday, February 22, 2010
Gratuitous Violence? AWESOME! Gratuitous Nudity? What the Hell is Wrong With You?
I love internet forums. They give me so much ammunition for rants about the stupidity of society in general.
Recently IGN wrote an article about the foursome with Aphrodite and two of her handmaidens (oh, there are so many jokes right there) the player character Kratos can engage in. This inevitably led to a discussion about the depiction of sex in video games, more specifically: how it seems to offend everyone that likes the game for the creative ways to decapitate, disembowel, eviscerate and otherwise graphically maim enemies. Severed head: goooood, boobies: BAD!
Allow me to share some of the more relevant parts of the discussion (read: the parts that I wrote.)
the_Willard:
psh, that's because the boobs in Dante's Inferno are purely gratuitous while the sex minigames in GoW have always been used in a more humorous, tongue-in-cheek way.
OK...that seems kinda backwards.
Well at least sex/nudity isn't the only thing that garners attention or controversy while the excessive violence is pretty much ignored.
Oh...alright. I give up, people are just f*%#ing stupid.
(please note: I own and love the first two God of War games, will be buying the third and Dante's Inferno was a big steaming pile of mediocrity doing anything for attention)
KennedyX8:
Yeah, developers can get away with a lot under the "M" rating. I wonder why they don't utilize it? I won't complain about more boobs in games.
LemonOut:
If you want more boobs, go watch porn. There are people who actually want to play a video game, and not watch some dialed up pixelated sex scene. Save the nudity for the movies, nobody needs to pixelated private parts. Violence fine. Nudity isn't necessary to tell a story or play a video game.
the_Willard:
Actually the video game rating system is far more strict than the rating system applied to movies. You can't get away with half the stuff in an M-rate game that you could in an R-rated movie, especially when it comes to nudity and/or sex.
For example...
Movie: Hostel - first half hour or so is all boobs and casual sex. Rest of the movie is gratuitous, over-the-top and extremely graphic depictions of violence, i.e. holes drilled in legs, achilles tendons sliced, fingers chainsawed off, eyeballs popped out with blowtorch, etc.
Game: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - majority of game is violence related to gang activity such as gunfighting or "fisticuffs" with very little graphic depiction aside from the occasional showing of blood. There is one possibility for sex and the depiction of boobs that not only requires significant technical knowledge to modify the game and a considerable time investment to develop a relationship with the chosen female partner but also remains entirely optional for the player.
Let's review: Movie - Gratuitous nudity and violence throughout. Extremely graphic depictions of violence. Numerous depictions of bare breasts, but no truly graphic depictions of sex acts. Minimalist story used as vehicle for "torture porn."
Rating: R (supposed game equivalent: M)
Game: Violence and sex integral to story of main character being dragged back in to a world of violence and the effect each has on affected character(s) and their relationships. Limited graphical depiction of both.
Rating: A-O (Supposed movie equivalent: NC-17)
Seems kinda uneven, don't it?
And anyone that says sex and/or nudity has no place as part of a story (movie or video game) is exceptionally delusional. Sex is an important port of any developed adult relationship and is a definitive sign of the status and importance of that relationship. Knowing certain characters have a sexual relationship changes the view of what those characters mean to each other and has a greater effect on sympathy when that relationship is threatened and even how it is threatened.
Sex is also effective in displaying the amorality of a character. Chuck Palahniuk's book Choke, for example (let's ignore the movie for now). This is a story about a sex addict, how he got to be the way that he is, what effect it has on his life and what effect it has on the lives of others. The story doesn't really work without sex and is considerably handicapped without a graphic depiction of the sex to show the depravity of both the acts and the lengths the character goes to in order to accomplish his sexual goals.
As for God of War...the nudity/sex is completely gratuitous. As I said before, it's tongue-in-cheek, it's played for giggles. Just like numerous scenes in every sex comedy ever made. This is a game that has spent much time touting the new technology the creators developed enabling realistic depiction of disembowelings, but digital boobies are a no-no? If it really bothers you that much to see some boobs and an off-screen depiction of sex...don't do it. As with the first two games it is entirely optional, all you have to do is...nothing. But if you're really perfectly OK with, and even cheer, impaling a guy with the arm you just tore from his torso, pulling an eyeball out of a cyclops's head or slicing a monster open and watching its organs spill out but the site of a pair of bare breasts makes you cry...well I think we've just found a new topic you should discuss with your therapist.
Recently IGN wrote an article about the foursome with Aphrodite and two of her handmaidens (oh, there are so many jokes right there) the player character Kratos can engage in. This inevitably led to a discussion about the depiction of sex in video games, more specifically: how it seems to offend everyone that likes the game for the creative ways to decapitate, disembowel, eviscerate and otherwise graphically maim enemies. Severed head: goooood, boobies: BAD!
Allow me to share some of the more relevant parts of the discussion (read: the parts that I wrote.)
the_Willard:
Phillman21 posted:
Ok so they go on about one little sex mini game. But not the thousands of boobs you see in Dante's inferno or the devils dick at the end. People need to stop hating lol.
psh, that's because the boobs in Dante's Inferno are purely gratuitous while the sex minigames in GoW have always been used in a more humorous, tongue-in-cheek way.
OK...that seems kinda backwards.
Well at least sex/nudity isn't the only thing that garners attention or controversy while the excessive violence is pretty much ignored.
Oh...alright. I give up, people are just f*%#ing stupid.
(please note: I own and love the first two God of War games, will be buying the third and Dante's Inferno was a big steaming pile of mediocrity doing anything for attention)
KennedyX8:
Yeah, developers can get away with a lot under the "M" rating. I wonder why they don't utilize it? I won't complain about more boobs in games.
LemonOut:
If you want more boobs, go watch porn. There are people who actually want to play a video game, and not watch some dialed up pixelated sex scene. Save the nudity for the movies, nobody needs to pixelated private parts. Violence fine. Nudity isn't necessary to tell a story or play a video game.
the_Willard:
KennedyX8 posted:
Yeah, developers can get away with a lot under the "M" rating. I wonder why they don't utilize it? I won't complain about more boobs in games.
Actually the video game rating system is far more strict than the rating system applied to movies. You can't get away with half the stuff in an M-rate game that you could in an R-rated movie, especially when it comes to nudity and/or sex.
For example...
Movie: Hostel - first half hour or so is all boobs and casual sex. Rest of the movie is gratuitous, over-the-top and extremely graphic depictions of violence, i.e. holes drilled in legs, achilles tendons sliced, fingers chainsawed off, eyeballs popped out with blowtorch, etc.
Game: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - majority of game is violence related to gang activity such as gunfighting or "fisticuffs" with very little graphic depiction aside from the occasional showing of blood. There is one possibility for sex and the depiction of boobs that not only requires significant technical knowledge to modify the game and a considerable time investment to develop a relationship with the chosen female partner but also remains entirely optional for the player.
Let's review: Movie - Gratuitous nudity and violence throughout. Extremely graphic depictions of violence. Numerous depictions of bare breasts, but no truly graphic depictions of sex acts. Minimalist story used as vehicle for "torture porn."
Rating: R (supposed game equivalent: M)
Game: Violence and sex integral to story of main character being dragged back in to a world of violence and the effect each has on affected character(s) and their relationships. Limited graphical depiction of both.
Rating: A-O (Supposed movie equivalent: NC-17)
Seems kinda uneven, don't it?
And anyone that says sex and/or nudity has no place as part of a story (movie or video game) is exceptionally delusional. Sex is an important port of any developed adult relationship and is a definitive sign of the status and importance of that relationship. Knowing certain characters have a sexual relationship changes the view of what those characters mean to each other and has a greater effect on sympathy when that relationship is threatened and even how it is threatened.
Sex is also effective in displaying the amorality of a character. Chuck Palahniuk's book Choke, for example (let's ignore the movie for now). This is a story about a sex addict, how he got to be the way that he is, what effect it has on his life and what effect it has on the lives of others. The story doesn't really work without sex and is considerably handicapped without a graphic depiction of the sex to show the depravity of both the acts and the lengths the character goes to in order to accomplish his sexual goals.
As for God of War...the nudity/sex is completely gratuitous. As I said before, it's tongue-in-cheek, it's played for giggles. Just like numerous scenes in every sex comedy ever made. This is a game that has spent much time touting the new technology the creators developed enabling realistic depiction of disembowelings, but digital boobies are a no-no? If it really bothers you that much to see some boobs and an off-screen depiction of sex...don't do it. As with the first two games it is entirely optional, all you have to do is...nothing. But if you're really perfectly OK with, and even cheer, impaling a guy with the arm you just tore from his torso, pulling an eyeball out of a cyclops's head or slicing a monster open and watching its organs spill out but the site of a pair of bare breasts makes you cry...well I think we've just found a new topic you should discuss with your therapist.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
King and Queen of Moronia. (Where knights jousted from atop dinosaurs!)
(click to stuper-size)
When White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made the outstandingly smooth move of referring to a group of liberal activists as "fucking retarded" (did he think that because it was a closed meeting no one would hear about it? Genius Rahm, really...) Sarah Palin was all over it. She likened it to use of the N-word (Which I actually agree with on some level. And let's be clear, actually agreeing with Palin on something forces me to choke back a particularly foul flavor of vomit) and called for him to be fired, via a Facebook post no less. While I think Mrs. Palin (whose email account was "hacked" by using information that can be found under the "Sarah Palin" entry on wikipedia) should probably stay away from such "technologically advanced" mediums such as Facebook, as a parent of a child with Down Syndrome, she has a good reason to be pissed off about the comment. Apparently when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, however, it's perfectly OK to use the R-word, at least in Palin's book.
Maybe only Republican's can use the R-word. You know...because Republican starts with an R, like how African Americans can use the N-word because...AGH! Trying to lower my mental function to that capable of understanding Sarah Palin's reasoning causes blood to trickle from my ear before I get 2/3 of the way there, sorry.
On to the Rush Limbaugh side of the story, he decided to take Rahm's comment and use it as some type of "see, I told you so" blanket statement about all liberals and dropped the R-bomb several times during a rant on his radio show:
I think the big news is the crackup going on. Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.
I mean, these liberal activists are kooks. They are loony tunes. And I'm not going to apologize for it, I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think the news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters effing retards. So now there's going to be a meeting. There's going to be a retard summit at the White House, much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.
How does this guy still have supporters? Ah yes, I forget about the direction our population is heading. Anyway, Palin's reaction to this? Seems that it's A-OK in her book. In an appearance on Fox News, former Presidential Candidate Palin (really, is that how low the bar is now? Can I run next election?) had this to say:
"They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire ... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there"
I'm sorry, what? Maybe I need to check my definition of satire, hang on.
Satire:
And a quick review of Rush Limbaugh's rant:
I think the big news is the crackup going on. Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.
I mean, these liberal activists are kooks. They are loony tunes. And I'm not going to apologize for it, I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think the news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters effing retards. So now there's going to be a meeting. There's going to be a retard summit at the White House, much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.
Again I must say: I'm sorry, what? I fail to see how the "satire" theory lines up. Maybe it has something to do with having appeared on Limbaugh's show more than once. Unless of course Palin's thought process went something like this: Hmm, big word, big word, don't get it, OH! Ridicule, I know that one! I learned it during the campaign! Rush was ridiculing liberals, which makes it satire, so it's OK! Hypocrisy avoided! YESSSS! *high-fives herself* Considering this is a woman who claimed being able to see Russia from her home in Alaska qualified as foreign policy experience, I don't think that's too much of a stretch.
So, to make sure I have this all straight, "Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities - and the people who love them - is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking." and he should be fired for having said such a thing, but it was OK for Limbaugh because it was "satire."
I don't...can't unders...hypocrisy shutting down brain...FUCK! Are you kidding me!? How do people this stupid manage to sit so high on the social, political and economic ladders? Both of these stains upon the face of America have LEGIONS of supporters all across the country. Some of them have even stated their willingness to vote for Palin should she run for the presidency herself. GOD DAMMIT! I wish I had the millions of dollars required to find all of these people, fly to their houses, slap them in the face and say "What the fuck is wrong with you?" Especially since a good number of these people live in "swing states" where their vote could actually cause that to happen whilst I, living in a "blue state," will have my vote count for absolutely nothing so long as the electoral college remains in play. Something that makes me powerless to stop such a travesty should it come to pass. Oh damnit. See what you did, you two? You actually managed to spread your joint stupidity so far that I've gotten on a rant about a different topic entirely. I hope you're happy. I better wrap this thing up before I somehow get started on Conservapedia or Glenn Beck.
So let me get my conclusion down before that happens. As long as I'm being satirical, I should be free to say that Palin and Limbaugh or both utter fucktards, right? Wrong. I've used the word "retard" and similar derivatives (see example from 13 words ago) to insult someone on more than one occasion, I know this. But I know I shouldn't, I know that it's bad and I scold myself for doing so. It's a habit, a bad one, like picking your nose or smoking. It's disgusting, and I'm trying to quit. What I don't do is attempt to rationalize my usage through one of the best examples of hypocrisy seen since the dawn of the English language. (I hear Merriam Webster is in talks to add it to the dictionary as an example, Mrs. Palin is reportedly excited to be included in such a widely read book) What Limbaugh said is bad enough, but Palin finding some backwards, nonsensical way to rationalize Limbaugh's statement is so stupid that the only word for it is "Palinesque." In fact , I think we should all do our best to stop using the word retard and use the word Palinesque instead. I'll even give it a definition to make it easier.
Palinesque:
an action or statement so far beyond stupid that one wonders if the person may be under the influence of chemical intoxication or recently suffered severe brain trauma.
Example: You don't understand why lighting a cigarette while pumping gas is bad? What are you, Palinesque?
Therefore, let me use a more politically correct closing. Both of you, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, are fucking Palinesque as fucking fuck and should leave the real world alone and retire to the land of Moronia where you would rule as king and queen through your innate ability to be the most Palinesque fucking fucks to ever have existed. (Yes, that was actually more politically correct, sad isn't it?)
Satire:
| 1. | the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. |
| 2. | a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. |
| 3. | a literary genre comprising such compositions. |
And a quick review of Rush Limbaugh's rant:
I think the big news is the crackup going on. Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.
I mean, these liberal activists are kooks. They are loony tunes. And I'm not going to apologize for it, I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think the news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters effing retards. So now there's going to be a meeting. There's going to be a retard summit at the White House, much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.
Again I must say: I'm sorry, what? I fail to see how the "satire" theory lines up. Maybe it has something to do with having appeared on Limbaugh's show more than once. Unless of course Palin's thought process went something like this: Hmm, big word, big word, don't get it, OH! Ridicule, I know that one! I learned it during the campaign! Rush was ridiculing liberals, which makes it satire, so it's OK! Hypocrisy avoided! YESSSS! *high-fives herself* Considering this is a woman who claimed being able to see Russia from her home in Alaska qualified as foreign policy experience, I don't think that's too much of a stretch.
So, to make sure I have this all straight, "Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities - and the people who love them - is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking." and he should be fired for having said such a thing, but it was OK for Limbaugh because it was "satire."
I don't...can't unders...hypocrisy shutting down brain...FUCK! Are you kidding me!? How do people this stupid manage to sit so high on the social, political and economic ladders? Both of these stains upon the face of America have LEGIONS of supporters all across the country. Some of them have even stated their willingness to vote for Palin should she run for the presidency herself. GOD DAMMIT! I wish I had the millions of dollars required to find all of these people, fly to their houses, slap them in the face and say "What the fuck is wrong with you?" Especially since a good number of these people live in "swing states" where their vote could actually cause that to happen whilst I, living in a "blue state," will have my vote count for absolutely nothing so long as the electoral college remains in play. Something that makes me powerless to stop such a travesty should it come to pass. Oh damnit. See what you did, you two? You actually managed to spread your joint stupidity so far that I've gotten on a rant about a different topic entirely. I hope you're happy. I better wrap this thing up before I somehow get started on Conservapedia or Glenn Beck.
So let me get my conclusion down before that happens. As long as I'm being satirical, I should be free to say that Palin and Limbaugh or both utter fucktards, right? Wrong. I've used the word "retard" and similar derivatives (see example from 13 words ago) to insult someone on more than one occasion, I know this. But I know I shouldn't, I know that it's bad and I scold myself for doing so. It's a habit, a bad one, like picking your nose or smoking. It's disgusting, and I'm trying to quit. What I don't do is attempt to rationalize my usage through one of the best examples of hypocrisy seen since the dawn of the English language. (I hear Merriam Webster is in talks to add it to the dictionary as an example, Mrs. Palin is reportedly excited to be included in such a widely read book) What Limbaugh said is bad enough, but Palin finding some backwards, nonsensical way to rationalize Limbaugh's statement is so stupid that the only word for it is "Palinesque." In fact , I think we should all do our best to stop using the word retard and use the word Palinesque instead. I'll even give it a definition to make it easier.
Palinesque:
an action or statement so far beyond stupid that one wonders if the person may be under the influence of chemical intoxication or recently suffered severe brain trauma.
Example: You don't understand why lighting a cigarette while pumping gas is bad? What are you, Palinesque?
Therefore, let me use a more politically correct closing. Both of you, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, are fucking Palinesque as fucking fuck and should leave the real world alone and retire to the land of Moronia where you would rule as king and queen through your innate ability to be the most Palinesque fucking fucks to ever have existed. (Yes, that was actually more politically correct, sad isn't it?)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)