The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Two rants in as many weeks? Being loved up and eerily happy to a degree I didn't think anthropologically possible clearly agrees with me...
We in the UK have a defining national characteristic that confuses the hell out of me. It's something that we're all aware of and that we all partake in, and I can't decide if it means that we're an embittered nation, or that we simply refuse to respect those whom we are assured are our betters. I'm referring to our great national pastime of building up our heroes before knocking them right back down again.
Oddly it was the Beckham 'scandal' about his allegedly naughty behavior with his PA, Rebecca Loos that got me thinking about this. Once I'd calmed down from my standard "we're living in a world run by a powerful and greedy elite who are making war without any consideration for how it affects ordinary people, yet we're content to let ourselves be diverted by THIS sloppy panda poo of a story?!" position that I always take about frivolous news items (a position which, although I still agree with, sort of indicates just how much I needed to lighten up), I actually started to feel rather sorry for Goldenballs.
I should qualify that; the man has basically consented to be used as a market brand and, although it's making him obscene amounts of cash, it's making his sponsors and advertisers rather more. He's handed over his life to the public domain, and if you live by the sword you die by the sword when it comes to publicity and selling yourself via the media. However, even with all that in mind I was more than a little sympathetic towards him. Why? Well, because the main tone taken by tabloid journalists was that Beckham had let down the people (mainly the children) who idolise and look up to him.
Now maybe this is just me, but how exactly did he let anyone down? By rutting with a bisexual nymphomaniac with a filthy mind and highly developed bedroom skills? Who did he let down by doing that, because surely that's a class above emptying himself up a talentless, vain, bulimic babyprovider with a face like Dutch elm disease. As near as I can tell, he was being criticised for setting a bad example to the precious children of the world. Apparently "millions of kids look up to Beckham; what kind of lesson does it teach them when their hero cheats on his wife?" (although one could say he's teaching them not to marry a Prada-bedecked ghost train skeleton).
So then; that's the answer to the soaring divorce rate in the UK. It's all the fault of David Beckham. Glad we've got that one cleared up. I confidently expect to find that, if he puts on a few pounds, he'll be to blame for the rise in obesity in children. Doubtless Labour’ll soon blame him for increasing voter apathy in elections. Maybe we'll see him cited as the reason for domestic violence next (of course, if he does take it into his head to batter his wife into a bloody smear on the wall, he'd almost certainly get a knighthood).
This is, of course, complete and utter camelbollocks. I don't deny that Beckham is an idol to millions, but to say that his actions will be reflected by his legion of admirers is rather like saying that we're a society so devoid of individuality and ideas that we're content to try and turn our children into clones of anodyne, soulless clones of supposedly perfect people. Unfortunately, it seems that that's exactly what this society is doing.
What do I mean by that? Well, firstly I want to look at how we view heroes in the first place. This little scandal seemed to me to say that if someone is a hero to millions, then those millions should try and emulate that person exactly. They should give up any vestiges of their own personality and identity in order to try and become their hero (and alas, with the number of brainbubblingly poor girlbands that make up the pop industry these days, anyone who knows their way around a football pitch will probably consider a member of Liberty X as their birthright). Then the same tabloids that criticise Beckham for having "let down his fans" run a story about the "evil freak" that is stalking Britney/Xtina/{Insert name of Pop Tart here}.
Even leaving aside the standard media hypocrisy of encouraging people to worship celebrities whilst demonising those whose lives are so empty that they stalk the object of their obsessions, it seems to me that we've got our treatment of heroes all wrong. Yes, a hero is someone to look up to and emulate. But a hero is not someone whom we should expect absolute perfection in every conceivable way from; they're simply someone who sets an example to us to live our life in a particular way. OUR life, not a bland Xeroxed copy of the hero's life. So, for example, my biggest hero in life is Bill Hicks and I try to emulate him in key areas of my life. However, I don't share his philosophy on relationships for example. Nor do I allow my adulation of him to dictate exactly what my opinions are; unlike him, I don't believe that a UFO will come down and rescue me from planet earth to educate and enlighten me about our place in the cosmos (by the way, Hicks did an extraordinary amount of hallucinogens which I think sort of explains his UFO beliefs...).
What my hero-worship of Hicks amounts to is that I'm compelled to speak my mind, tell the truth, and stand up for my beliefs. Beckham is a footballer, so why should anyone’s adulation of him go beyond "I want to be a good footballer"? Why in the name of Christ should he be a role model for the perfect family life? He's a multi millionaire; who can reasonably expect to have a family life involving shopping trips to Milan, villas in 5 countries, and a disposable income so vast that looks like it should be stated as a physics? No-one is criticising him for setting a bad example by giving people false hope of impossible dreams, so why criticise him for something done by depressingly large numbers of people anyway?
Well, because we'll criticise anything and anyone if it means we don't have to acknowledge that the society in which we live has some major flaws in it. Don't want to acknowledge our hypocrisy in marketing youth and young women as being sexually attractive whilst jumping up and down in a frenzied rage about paedophiles? (Of which the finest example has to be the Daily Mail running an article on 15-year-old Charlotte Church having a nice ass, whilst on the opposite page an article about protecting our kids from Paedogeddon screamed out at us) Simple; just blame pornography. Upset that house prices are rising and wages are still low? Then blame immigrants. Don't fancy acknowledging that the failure of the model of an ideal family is losing relevance in the modern western world? No problem, just blame celebrities and say that their infidelity is bringing down western civilisation.
If we want our oh-so-valuable children to grow up to be good footballers, Beckham is as good a role model as any. If we want them to be angry and paranoid middle class white men, Bill Hicks is your chap. If we want them to grow up to be faithful to their partners, tolerant of differences in others, determined, hard working, compassionate, brave, and decent then maybe we should look at ourselves and start closer to home. After all, we can't blame celebrities for everything. However amusing it is to do so.
We in the UK have a defining national characteristic that confuses the hell out of me. It's something that we're all aware of and that we all partake in, and I can't decide if it means that we're an embittered nation, or that we simply refuse to respect those whom we are assured are our betters. I'm referring to our great national pastime of building up our heroes before knocking them right back down again.
Oddly it was the Beckham 'scandal' about his allegedly naughty behavior with his PA, Rebecca Loos that got me thinking about this. Once I'd calmed down from my standard "we're living in a world run by a powerful and greedy elite who are making war without any consideration for how it affects ordinary people, yet we're content to let ourselves be diverted by THIS sloppy panda poo of a story?!" position that I always take about frivolous news items (a position which, although I still agree with, sort of indicates just how much I needed to lighten up), I actually started to feel rather sorry for Goldenballs.
I should qualify that; the man has basically consented to be used as a market brand and, although it's making him obscene amounts of cash, it's making his sponsors and advertisers rather more. He's handed over his life to the public domain, and if you live by the sword you die by the sword when it comes to publicity and selling yourself via the media. However, even with all that in mind I was more than a little sympathetic towards him. Why? Well, because the main tone taken by tabloid journalists was that Beckham had let down the people (mainly the children) who idolise and look up to him.
Now maybe this is just me, but how exactly did he let anyone down? By rutting with a bisexual nymphomaniac with a filthy mind and highly developed bedroom skills? Who did he let down by doing that, because surely that's a class above emptying himself up a talentless, vain, bulimic babyprovider with a face like Dutch elm disease. As near as I can tell, he was being criticised for setting a bad example to the precious children of the world. Apparently "millions of kids look up to Beckham; what kind of lesson does it teach them when their hero cheats on his wife?" (although one could say he's teaching them not to marry a Prada-bedecked ghost train skeleton).
So then; that's the answer to the soaring divorce rate in the UK. It's all the fault of David Beckham. Glad we've got that one cleared up. I confidently expect to find that, if he puts on a few pounds, he'll be to blame for the rise in obesity in children. Doubtless Labour’ll soon blame him for increasing voter apathy in elections. Maybe we'll see him cited as the reason for domestic violence next (of course, if he does take it into his head to batter his wife into a bloody smear on the wall, he'd almost certainly get a knighthood).
This is, of course, complete and utter camelbollocks. I don't deny that Beckham is an idol to millions, but to say that his actions will be reflected by his legion of admirers is rather like saying that we're a society so devoid of individuality and ideas that we're content to try and turn our children into clones of anodyne, soulless clones of supposedly perfect people. Unfortunately, it seems that that's exactly what this society is doing.
What do I mean by that? Well, firstly I want to look at how we view heroes in the first place. This little scandal seemed to me to say that if someone is a hero to millions, then those millions should try and emulate that person exactly. They should give up any vestiges of their own personality and identity in order to try and become their hero (and alas, with the number of brainbubblingly poor girlbands that make up the pop industry these days, anyone who knows their way around a football pitch will probably consider a member of Liberty X as their birthright). Then the same tabloids that criticise Beckham for having "let down his fans" run a story about the "evil freak" that is stalking Britney/Xtina/{Insert name of Pop Tart here}.
Even leaving aside the standard media hypocrisy of encouraging people to worship celebrities whilst demonising those whose lives are so empty that they stalk the object of their obsessions, it seems to me that we've got our treatment of heroes all wrong. Yes, a hero is someone to look up to and emulate. But a hero is not someone whom we should expect absolute perfection in every conceivable way from; they're simply someone who sets an example to us to live our life in a particular way. OUR life, not a bland Xeroxed copy of the hero's life. So, for example, my biggest hero in life is Bill Hicks and I try to emulate him in key areas of my life. However, I don't share his philosophy on relationships for example. Nor do I allow my adulation of him to dictate exactly what my opinions are; unlike him, I don't believe that a UFO will come down and rescue me from planet earth to educate and enlighten me about our place in the cosmos (by the way, Hicks did an extraordinary amount of hallucinogens which I think sort of explains his UFO beliefs...).
What my hero-worship of Hicks amounts to is that I'm compelled to speak my mind, tell the truth, and stand up for my beliefs. Beckham is a footballer, so why should anyone’s adulation of him go beyond "I want to be a good footballer"? Why in the name of Christ should he be a role model for the perfect family life? He's a multi millionaire; who can reasonably expect to have a family life involving shopping trips to Milan, villas in 5 countries, and a disposable income so vast that looks like it should be stated as a physics? No-one is criticising him for setting a bad example by giving people false hope of impossible dreams, so why criticise him for something done by depressingly large numbers of people anyway?
Well, because we'll criticise anything and anyone if it means we don't have to acknowledge that the society in which we live has some major flaws in it. Don't want to acknowledge our hypocrisy in marketing youth and young women as being sexually attractive whilst jumping up and down in a frenzied rage about paedophiles? (Of which the finest example has to be the Daily Mail running an article on 15-year-old Charlotte Church having a nice ass, whilst on the opposite page an article about protecting our kids from Paedogeddon screamed out at us) Simple; just blame pornography. Upset that house prices are rising and wages are still low? Then blame immigrants. Don't fancy acknowledging that the failure of the model of an ideal family is losing relevance in the modern western world? No problem, just blame celebrities and say that their infidelity is bringing down western civilisation.
If we want our oh-so-valuable children to grow up to be good footballers, Beckham is as good a role model as any. If we want them to be angry and paranoid middle class white men, Bill Hicks is your chap. If we want them to grow up to be faithful to their partners, tolerant of differences in others, determined, hard working, compassionate, brave, and decent then maybe we should look at ourselves and start closer to home. After all, we can't blame celebrities for everything. However amusing it is to do so.
Page:
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
>
> That's my point. Who cares if its a sterile, unimaginative,
> spiritually and intellectually dead nightmare of a world if everybody
> is content?
Hmm...well, to have gotten everyone to a state of contentment, you would have had to eradicate the drive toward spiritual and intellectual advances. You'd also have to have an elite to ensure that the level of contentment never dropped; to keep the population happy and stupid isn't an easy task. These people would, by necessity, need to be intellectually superior to the masses they control. And, as history shows again and again, power corrupts.
So essentially you'd have a world ran by a few people where the masses are kept stupid and given an idea of contentment that isn't very fulfilling to the human being, an animal which again history shows is constantly striving to improve it's collective factual and spiritual understanding of the world, something which is an unnatural state of affairs and which the human mind would rebel against.
Sounds worryingly like todays world actually...
>
> That's my point. Who cares if its a sterile, unimaginative,
> spiritually and intellectually dead nightmare of a world if everybody
> is content?
Hmm...well, to have gotten everyone to a state of contentment, you would have had to eradicate the drive toward spiritual and intellectual advances. You'd also have to have an elite to ensure that the level of contentment never dropped; to keep the population happy and stupid isn't an easy task. These people would, by necessity, need to be intellectually superior to the masses they control. And, as history shows again and again, power corrupts.
So essentially you'd have a world ran by a few people where the masses are kept stupid and given an idea of contentment that isn't very fulfilling to the human being, an animal which again history shows is constantly striving to improve it's collective factual and spiritual understanding of the world, something which is an unnatural state of affairs and which the human mind would rebel against.
Sounds worryingly like todays world actually...
Indeed. If everybody is content, then lack of any creativity and (bla bla bla) would consequently be irrelevant, or rather part of the content. It's like saying 'there can never be a perfect world, because humans will never be able to achieve it'. That's not the point. In a utopia, humans will have achieved it. It's not about now, it's about then.
Although I'd hardly call that content world a utopia...
Although I'd hardly call that content world a utopia...
Light wrote:
>
> For a better idea of why I personally would object to this, read
> Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It shows us a world where everyone
> is happy and content. Yet it's a sterile, unimaginative, spiritually
> and intellectually dead nightmare of a world.
That's my point. Who cares if its a sterile, unimaginative, spiritually and intellectually dead nightmare of a world if everybody is content?
>
> For a better idea of why I personally would object to this, read
> Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It shows us a world where everyone
> is happy and content. Yet it's a sterile, unimaginative, spiritually
> and intellectually dead nightmare of a world.
That's my point. Who cares if its a sterile, unimaginative, spiritually and intellectually dead nightmare of a world if everybody is content?
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> You're swell, Saggy. I heart you.
Gee whizz! Does that mean we are going together?
> You're swell, Saggy. I heart you.
Gee whizz! Does that mean we are going together?
Our house and car have got the flags...
:-D
Is it REALLY such a crime to support your countries football team? :-P
:-D
Is it REALLY such a crime to support your countries football team? :-P
I agree with Goatboy over the flags, not so much over mass murder. But each to their own.
Goatboy wrote:
> Oh, and hi all.
Hi!
> Oh, and hi all.
Hi!
Conflict breeds creativity through imagination and necessity.
I have a simple solution.
Kill them. Kill them all.
Round up anybody that has those stupid England flags on their car, round up anybody wearing an imitation football top, round up anybody that think David Beckham is anything other than a mongoloid footballer who sold every part of himself for more money (because tens of thousands of pounds a week isn't enough).
And kill them.
I don't care how you do it. Gas them, machine gun, bury them alive. Just put them out of my misery.
I loathe, with a headache inducing white-hot pure fury, any of you slackjawed retards that watch Big Brother and vote or care about it.
I hate, pure unadultarated hate, anybody that think a bloke that kicks a football about is a "role model" for anybody other than other footballers.
Role model? "Hey kids, be like Beckham! No amount of money is enough, you can never have too much! Sponsor teeth rotting soft drinks that kids will buy because your face is on it!"
And you spastic faux-patriots - you know who you are - that have those flags on your car and outside your house.
Guess what?
YOU'RE ENGLISH 100% OF THE TIME NOT JUST AT SPORTING EVENTS
When England crashes out, and they will, these flags will disappear faster than Rwandan refugees at supposed safe-camps.
Hypocritical close-eyed watery sacks of stupidity.
Each. And. Every. One. Of. You
Without exception, so don't bother baaaah baaaah baaaaing about how you're different.
If you have a flag on your house/car then you should be assraped with a copy of The Daily Mail and forced to repeat after me:
"There is no such thing as being English and proud. We are all immigrants from somewhere else with a German Royal Family. I am an assface and I should be quartered like an apple"
*seethe seethe seethe*
Oh, and hi all.
Kill them. Kill them all.
Round up anybody that has those stupid England flags on their car, round up anybody wearing an imitation football top, round up anybody that think David Beckham is anything other than a mongoloid footballer who sold every part of himself for more money (because tens of thousands of pounds a week isn't enough).
And kill them.
I don't care how you do it. Gas them, machine gun, bury them alive. Just put them out of my misery.
I loathe, with a headache inducing white-hot pure fury, any of you slackjawed retards that watch Big Brother and vote or care about it.
I hate, pure unadultarated hate, anybody that think a bloke that kicks a football about is a "role model" for anybody other than other footballers.
Role model? "Hey kids, be like Beckham! No amount of money is enough, you can never have too much! Sponsor teeth rotting soft drinks that kids will buy because your face is on it!"
And you spastic faux-patriots - you know who you are - that have those flags on your car and outside your house.
Guess what?
YOU'RE ENGLISH 100% OF THE TIME NOT JUST AT SPORTING EVENTS
When England crashes out, and they will, these flags will disappear faster than Rwandan refugees at supposed safe-camps.
Hypocritical close-eyed watery sacks of stupidity.
Each. And. Every. One. Of. You
Without exception, so don't bother baaaah baaaah baaaaing about how you're different.
If you have a flag on your house/car then you should be assraped with a copy of The Daily Mail and forced to repeat after me:
"There is no such thing as being English and proud. We are all immigrants from somewhere else with a German Royal Family. I am an assface and I should be quartered like an apple"
*seethe seethe seethe*
Oh, and hi all.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Hum.
>
> I don't like neds/chavs/townies, if I'm right in thinking that these
> are all the same thing. But if they want to drive souped up Nova's,
> wear Burberry and go on holiday to Faliraki, I can't really say that
> they are wrong for living this way. Far as I see it, people like this
> seem very happy, none of the issues of personal identity, wondering
> if the external world exists, wondering if they are good people that
> I myself depress myself with. It seems a shallow existance, but that
> isn't itself a bad thing - perhaps if everybody lived like that we
> could then all be happy?
Well...if everyone did live like that, we'd be in caves living short and unhappy lives before long; ignorance blissfulness leads to no advances in society. Also, human nature being what it is, there would always but always be someone trying to gain primacy; just look at Mary for example. His cult purports to be about happiness and, judging by his example, they're extremely ignorant people. Yet look at how hard Mary strives to impose his ideas (such as they are) on others. It indicates to me that it is simply not possible for everyone to live at the lowest common denominator.
For a better idea of why I personally would object to this, read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It shows us a world where everyone is happy and content. Yet it's a sterile, unimaginative, spiritually and intellectually dead nightmare of a world.
>
> Please do say if you disagree with what I've said - I speak so the
> weak parts of my opinion can be pointed out by someone else, and I
> can so not sound like such an {bottom} in real life.
Mm, me too. When I write this stuff, it's as much about figuring out what I think about the topic as it is anything else.
> Hum.
>
> I don't like neds/chavs/townies, if I'm right in thinking that these
> are all the same thing. But if they want to drive souped up Nova's,
> wear Burberry and go on holiday to Faliraki, I can't really say that
> they are wrong for living this way. Far as I see it, people like this
> seem very happy, none of the issues of personal identity, wondering
> if the external world exists, wondering if they are good people that
> I myself depress myself with. It seems a shallow existance, but that
> isn't itself a bad thing - perhaps if everybody lived like that we
> could then all be happy?
Well...if everyone did live like that, we'd be in caves living short and unhappy lives before long; ignorance blissfulness leads to no advances in society. Also, human nature being what it is, there would always but always be someone trying to gain primacy; just look at Mary for example. His cult purports to be about happiness and, judging by his example, they're extremely ignorant people. Yet look at how hard Mary strives to impose his ideas (such as they are) on others. It indicates to me that it is simply not possible for everyone to live at the lowest common denominator.
For a better idea of why I personally would object to this, read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It shows us a world where everyone is happy and content. Yet it's a sterile, unimaginative, spiritually and intellectually dead nightmare of a world.
>
> Please do say if you disagree with what I've said - I speak so the
> weak parts of my opinion can be pointed out by someone else, and I
> can so not sound like such an {bottom} in real life.
Mm, me too. When I write this stuff, it's as much about figuring out what I think about the topic as it is anything else.
Page: