The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It has often been said that we are living in the age of cynicism. Admittedly, I usually hear this being said to me pretty soon after I’ve spent a drunken 20 minutes seething about the shortcomings of whichever politician/religious leader/media outlet has aroused my ire on that particular day. And that is usually followed up by “Just chill out for Gods sake; have you always managed to get personally offended by broad social trends?”. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that our current society is regarded as unforgivably cynical by almost every commentator who can be bothered to raise the issue.
It is, of course, incredibly simple to come up with an explanation for this; it’s the fault of the politicians/religious leaders/media outlets for being such a bunch of weasel-faced, conniving, self-serving mongtards. Isn’t it?
Well, to a certain degree I suppose yes, it is. But if you were to walk up to any of the above and ask “Do you see yourself as a weasel-faced, self serving…”, I would doubt very much that you would get the reflective pause followed by the “Since you put it like that, yes I am” answer that one would quite naturally hope for. In fact, shortly before you were hauled off by stewards for asking awkward questions, you would probably find that the target of your question would be rather upset at being thought of in such a way. Everyone likes to think of himself or herself as a basically good person. So why are so many people in positions of responsibility such inveterate splatters of cockjuice?
My answer would be that it is a matter of integrity. More accurately, it is a matter of the upper echelons of society having a serious lack of it. Come to think of it, it is a matter of every single layer of society not having much, if any, integrity.
So what, after having insulted pretty much everyone in the world with that last statement, do I mean? Well, to give an example; both Dubya and Blair claim to be “good” Christians (has anyone ever claimed to be a sub-standard Christian?). They say that the guiding light of what they do comes from the teachings of Jesus. Yet having read chunks of the Bible, I entirely missed the section where our Lord and Saviour launched a pre-emptive strike against another country which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands. I don’t recall Christ being desperately keen to send soldiers to their deaths (as, according to one of his aides, Tony Blair was). And I’m absolutely certain that he didn’t condone torture as a valid method of dealing with people who won’t admit to being a terrorist.
In other words, whilst they are both saying one thing, it’s pretty damned clear that they’re doing another. But do they sit rubbing their hands with demonic glee at how they’ve mislead the public into giving support for their blatant grab for oil? Although it’s a tempting image, I don’t really think they are. I think they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, even though a mounting body count and an increasingly angry nation would seem to indicate otherwise. The same would go for the shower of schiessekopfs who make up the various Arabic terrorist groups; call me picky, but I can’t really see how blasting innocent people into tiny little pieces is an adequate demonstration of Allah’s mercy and compassion.
What I’m saying is that all of these leaders lack the integrity to DO what they SAY. They’ve fooled themselves into believing that their actions are entirely in keeping with their faith and their beliefs.
They are, of course, not the only politicians to lack the courage of their professed convictions, and that is almost certainly why politics is regarded with disgust (when regarded at all) by most members of the public. In fact I’m hard pressed to think of a politician who actually stuck to their principles, rather than abandoning them in the name of advancement. Robin Cook is one, and George Galloway another (a fact that never fails to elicit howls of rage from the various New Labour slogan-bleaters). I was going to add Alan Clark to that list, but I suppose he never really had many convictions beyond “get into government, and the pants of as many women as possible”.
We’ve also seen the sham that is “the integrity of the independent media” in recent times; the speed at which the BBC backed down over the Hutton enquiry was rather embarrassing (although that pails into comparison beside our national habit of “building ‘em up then knocking ‘em down”). The media still claim to be doing their best to keep the public informed about the issues that matter. Who actually believes that? Was anyone in the tiniest bit shocked or scandalised by the “revelation” that Kate Moss takes cocaine? It’s right up there with the news that Michelle McManus likes her pies in terms of genuine news value (it’s also a valuable lesson that any woman over the age of 30 should know better than to be successful AND attractive; that’ll teach her, eh?).
Yet this is what we are offered as evidence of the media’s claim to be the watchdog of a democratic society. What a steaming pile; they’ve become the prurient watchdog of a Daily Mail morality, nothing more. Where’s the integrity there? When one looks at the warmed-through pile of shark vomit that is offered to us in place of actual news, is it any wonder that we are all so monumentally cynical about pretty much every aspect of life?
Yet for all the criticism I offer of world leaders and nebulous organisations, I can’t in all good conscience, excuse either the public at large, or myself. How many of us have sat there and ignored a friend making a racist joke? How many of us have actually laughed at one? Yet would any of you stand up and say “Yes, I’m proud to be a hater of all skin-hues darker than mine!”? How many people can justify their lack of integrity on the grounds of irony (do you claim to value human life, but prone to laughing at jokes about disasters involving massive loss of human life? Welcome to the Ironic Club!).
Even as I look back on that paragraph, it’s fairly obvious why we don’t have the integrity to speak out against such things; it’s because we all want to be accepted. We don’t want to rock the boat. On a personal level, I lacked the integrity to confront my former girlfriend about just why things were going quite so horribly wrong in our relationship. I smiled, made all the appropriate “I love you” noises, and hoped the bad times would go away. That lack of integrity preserved the status quo, but helped neither her nor I in the long run. Although I did the standard Man thing of blaming her entirely (naturally), there’s no way at all that I can excuse myself from my share of the blame (and, several years later, I no longer do). Thus, I can claim to have regained my integrity (and my face-punchingly annoying sense of smugness).
There is a balance to be struck, I suppose, between maintaining ones integrity in the face of peer pressure, and not becoming a humourless zealot who expresses that integrity by peering down their nose at whomever doesn’t meet expectations. I know that I can’t say I strike that balance at all times. But I can also say that I haven’t irrevocably ruined (or ended) lives because of it. I’d be interested to know what the justifications are of the people and organisations I’ve spent this rant attacking are. I’ll place a large bet that they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
It is, of course, incredibly simple to come up with an explanation for this; it’s the fault of the politicians/religious leaders/media outlets for being such a bunch of weasel-faced, conniving, self-serving mongtards. Isn’t it?
Well, to a certain degree I suppose yes, it is. But if you were to walk up to any of the above and ask “Do you see yourself as a weasel-faced, self serving…”, I would doubt very much that you would get the reflective pause followed by the “Since you put it like that, yes I am” answer that one would quite naturally hope for. In fact, shortly before you were hauled off by stewards for asking awkward questions, you would probably find that the target of your question would be rather upset at being thought of in such a way. Everyone likes to think of himself or herself as a basically good person. So why are so many people in positions of responsibility such inveterate splatters of cockjuice?
My answer would be that it is a matter of integrity. More accurately, it is a matter of the upper echelons of society having a serious lack of it. Come to think of it, it is a matter of every single layer of society not having much, if any, integrity.
So what, after having insulted pretty much everyone in the world with that last statement, do I mean? Well, to give an example; both Dubya and Blair claim to be “good” Christians (has anyone ever claimed to be a sub-standard Christian?). They say that the guiding light of what they do comes from the teachings of Jesus. Yet having read chunks of the Bible, I entirely missed the section where our Lord and Saviour launched a pre-emptive strike against another country which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands. I don’t recall Christ being desperately keen to send soldiers to their deaths (as, according to one of his aides, Tony Blair was). And I’m absolutely certain that he didn’t condone torture as a valid method of dealing with people who won’t admit to being a terrorist.
In other words, whilst they are both saying one thing, it’s pretty damned clear that they’re doing another. But do they sit rubbing their hands with demonic glee at how they’ve mislead the public into giving support for their blatant grab for oil? Although it’s a tempting image, I don’t really think they are. I think they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, even though a mounting body count and an increasingly angry nation would seem to indicate otherwise. The same would go for the shower of schiessekopfs who make up the various Arabic terrorist groups; call me picky, but I can’t really see how blasting innocent people into tiny little pieces is an adequate demonstration of Allah’s mercy and compassion.
What I’m saying is that all of these leaders lack the integrity to DO what they SAY. They’ve fooled themselves into believing that their actions are entirely in keeping with their faith and their beliefs.
They are, of course, not the only politicians to lack the courage of their professed convictions, and that is almost certainly why politics is regarded with disgust (when regarded at all) by most members of the public. In fact I’m hard pressed to think of a politician who actually stuck to their principles, rather than abandoning them in the name of advancement. Robin Cook is one, and George Galloway another (a fact that never fails to elicit howls of rage from the various New Labour slogan-bleaters). I was going to add Alan Clark to that list, but I suppose he never really had many convictions beyond “get into government, and the pants of as many women as possible”.
We’ve also seen the sham that is “the integrity of the independent media” in recent times; the speed at which the BBC backed down over the Hutton enquiry was rather embarrassing (although that pails into comparison beside our national habit of “building ‘em up then knocking ‘em down”). The media still claim to be doing their best to keep the public informed about the issues that matter. Who actually believes that? Was anyone in the tiniest bit shocked or scandalised by the “revelation” that Kate Moss takes cocaine? It’s right up there with the news that Michelle McManus likes her pies in terms of genuine news value (it’s also a valuable lesson that any woman over the age of 30 should know better than to be successful AND attractive; that’ll teach her, eh?).
Yet this is what we are offered as evidence of the media’s claim to be the watchdog of a democratic society. What a steaming pile; they’ve become the prurient watchdog of a Daily Mail morality, nothing more. Where’s the integrity there? When one looks at the warmed-through pile of shark vomit that is offered to us in place of actual news, is it any wonder that we are all so monumentally cynical about pretty much every aspect of life?
Yet for all the criticism I offer of world leaders and nebulous organisations, I can’t in all good conscience, excuse either the public at large, or myself. How many of us have sat there and ignored a friend making a racist joke? How many of us have actually laughed at one? Yet would any of you stand up and say “Yes, I’m proud to be a hater of all skin-hues darker than mine!”? How many people can justify their lack of integrity on the grounds of irony (do you claim to value human life, but prone to laughing at jokes about disasters involving massive loss of human life? Welcome to the Ironic Club!).
Even as I look back on that paragraph, it’s fairly obvious why we don’t have the integrity to speak out against such things; it’s because we all want to be accepted. We don’t want to rock the boat. On a personal level, I lacked the integrity to confront my former girlfriend about just why things were going quite so horribly wrong in our relationship. I smiled, made all the appropriate “I love you” noises, and hoped the bad times would go away. That lack of integrity preserved the status quo, but helped neither her nor I in the long run. Although I did the standard Man thing of blaming her entirely (naturally), there’s no way at all that I can excuse myself from my share of the blame (and, several years later, I no longer do). Thus, I can claim to have regained my integrity (and my face-punchingly annoying sense of smugness).
There is a balance to be struck, I suppose, between maintaining ones integrity in the face of peer pressure, and not becoming a humourless zealot who expresses that integrity by peering down their nose at whomever doesn’t meet expectations. I know that I can’t say I strike that balance at all times. But I can also say that I haven’t irrevocably ruined (or ended) lives because of it. I’d be interested to know what the justifications are of the people and organisations I’ve spent this rant attacking are. I’ll place a large bet that they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Page:
I'll get round to answering those.
On another note: someone might be seen to lose their integrity in-order that someone else keeps theirs.
I think the trouble is that society's conditions are setup in such a way so that someone who is doing exactly the opposite of what they have said they will do can make a lot of money.
On another note: someone might be seen to lose their integrity in-order that someone else keeps theirs.
I think the trouble is that society's conditions are setup in such a way so that someone who is doing exactly the opposite of what they have said they will do can make a lot of money.
Strafio wrote:
> I think Light's question is, how did it come to this?
Exactly so.
> I think Light's question is, how did it come to this?
Exactly so.
Hedfix wrote:
> It's using the freedom of speech to suggest such a thing. Standards
> or not, the suggestion is allowed to be made.
But what I'm asking is, is the suggestion allowed to be refuted? Or are you saying that the mere suggestion of it is enough to justify enforcement?
> Yep, you couldn't come close to knowing all the factors that affected
> such a decision unless you are that person and even then various
> physical and environmental factors might be applicable.
Would you, however, feel that you are justified in trying to hold that person to account, and explain their reasoning?
> Aren't the people who buy the papers?
Yup, absolutely. Which goes to what I'm asking; is integrity (or lack thereof) something we've been taught is acceptible, or have politicians/the media etc seen that we don't much care about integrity and reacted accordingly?
> The world isn't perfect. You can spend your entire life trying to
> make it so but it isn't going to happen. It is human nature to make
> mistakes and humans are skilled in deception and have been for a very
> long time. The only way to fully rectify this would be to take away
> that which makes us human and not simply robots or something.
Yet I'm not saying that making mistakes is a bad thing. I'm saying that displaying a lack of integrity is. You say the world isn't perfect, and of course you are right; does that mean one should simply stop trying to make it better?
>
> Depends. That's going to be different for each individual.
Fair enough.
>
> Integrity is personal; it has dick all to do with rules of society.
> Why do you feel that the "rules" of society necessarily
> dictate a persons integrity?
>
> Why do you feel a person's integrity can be judged in the first
> place? It can't.
Firstly, like I keep saying, I'm not talking about judging someone for their integrity. I'm talking about seeing when a person lacks integrity.
> How can you judge something without rules to apply
> to how something should be judged? You have to have some sort of
> framework to judge someone's integrity otherwise you simply can't do
> it to a decent degree: the rules of society seem like a decent
> starting point.
Secondly...well, I say I'm going to behave in a certain way. I fail to do so. Someone points that out. I explain that even though it appears I am not behaving in the way I said I am, really I am.
Isn't that a fairly simple guage to use? No need for value judgements; just a simple measure of integrity.
>
> And that's where they're most fallible because personal circumstances
> can change and different situations can change a person's stance.
Absolutely. And if they have integrity, they'll say just that. They won't try and claim to be sticking to their original stance, no?
> No but they can oust them from a position if they do NOT behave with
> enough integrity.
Agreed. Yet, generally, we don't do so. Or at least, we're selective about when we do. Why is this?
>
>
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone. I'm talking about
> exactly what integrity is.
>
> On some level this will differ from person to person.
On a certain level, yup. But on the simple level mentioned above, isn't it the same across the board?
>
>
> If that's the case, (about personal rules) why come up with a set of
> personal rules if one has no intention of following them?
>
> People who mean well? People who want to control other people:
> "The government says murder is wrong, yet we see governemnt
> sanctioned murder a lot".
I don't really see the relevance of this in response to the original question; could you clarify please?
> If only it were that easy. I would suggest there's more power,
> success and an easier life can be had from not openly displaying your
> weaknesses for others to exploit.
Which leads me back to one of the original points; how DID society get to the position where artifice is more valued than integrity?
>
> The world's not perfect.
So you keep saying. Is that, then, an excuse to do nothing to attempt to improve it?
> It's using the freedom of speech to suggest such a thing. Standards
> or not, the suggestion is allowed to be made.
But what I'm asking is, is the suggestion allowed to be refuted? Or are you saying that the mere suggestion of it is enough to justify enforcement?
> Yep, you couldn't come close to knowing all the factors that affected
> such a decision unless you are that person and even then various
> physical and environmental factors might be applicable.
Would you, however, feel that you are justified in trying to hold that person to account, and explain their reasoning?
> Aren't the people who buy the papers?
Yup, absolutely. Which goes to what I'm asking; is integrity (or lack thereof) something we've been taught is acceptible, or have politicians/the media etc seen that we don't much care about integrity and reacted accordingly?
> The world isn't perfect. You can spend your entire life trying to
> make it so but it isn't going to happen. It is human nature to make
> mistakes and humans are skilled in deception and have been for a very
> long time. The only way to fully rectify this would be to take away
> that which makes us human and not simply robots or something.
Yet I'm not saying that making mistakes is a bad thing. I'm saying that displaying a lack of integrity is. You say the world isn't perfect, and of course you are right; does that mean one should simply stop trying to make it better?
>
> Depends. That's going to be different for each individual.
Fair enough.
>
> Integrity is personal; it has dick all to do with rules of society.
> Why do you feel that the "rules" of society necessarily
> dictate a persons integrity?
>
> Why do you feel a person's integrity can be judged in the first
> place? It can't.
Firstly, like I keep saying, I'm not talking about judging someone for their integrity. I'm talking about seeing when a person lacks integrity.
> How can you judge something without rules to apply
> to how something should be judged? You have to have some sort of
> framework to judge someone's integrity otherwise you simply can't do
> it to a decent degree: the rules of society seem like a decent
> starting point.
Secondly...well, I say I'm going to behave in a certain way. I fail to do so. Someone points that out. I explain that even though it appears I am not behaving in the way I said I am, really I am.
Isn't that a fairly simple guage to use? No need for value judgements; just a simple measure of integrity.
>
> And that's where they're most fallible because personal circumstances
> can change and different situations can change a person's stance.
Absolutely. And if they have integrity, they'll say just that. They won't try and claim to be sticking to their original stance, no?
> No but they can oust them from a position if they do NOT behave with
> enough integrity.
Agreed. Yet, generally, we don't do so. Or at least, we're selective about when we do. Why is this?
>
>
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone. I'm talking about
> exactly what integrity is.
>
> On some level this will differ from person to person.
On a certain level, yup. But on the simple level mentioned above, isn't it the same across the board?
>
>
> If that's the case, (about personal rules) why come up with a set of
> personal rules if one has no intention of following them?
>
> People who mean well? People who want to control other people:
> "The government says murder is wrong, yet we see governemnt
> sanctioned murder a lot".
I don't really see the relevance of this in response to the original question; could you clarify please?
> If only it were that easy. I would suggest there's more power,
> success and an easier life can be had from not openly displaying your
> weaknesses for others to exploit.
Which leads me back to one of the original points; how DID society get to the position where artifice is more valued than integrity?
>
> The world's not perfect.
So you keep saying. Is that, then, an excuse to do nothing to attempt to improve it?
Hedfix wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone.
>
> Light wrote:
>
> So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have
> integrity?
>
> Well, it seems that you are.
Not so; measuring integrity allows us to know whether or not someone will act in a particular way. It's entirely up to the individual as to what judgements they choose to make based on that information.
I'll respond to the other post in more detail later.
> Light wrote:
>
> As I said, I'm not talking about judging anyone.
>
> Light wrote:
>
> So then, how does one measure whether or not they truly have
> integrity?
>
> Well, it seems that you are.
Not so; measuring integrity allows us to know whether or not someone will act in a particular way. It's entirely up to the individual as to what judgements they choose to make based on that information.
I'll respond to the other post in more detail later.
Strafio wrote:
> I think the media are another bunch that have questionable integrity.
Very true! Lies sell papers.
> I think the media are another bunch that have questionable integrity.
Very true! Lies sell papers.
I think the media are another bunch that have questionable integrity.
Light mentioned how the BBC lost their bottle in challenging Tony Blair, tabloids are a well known case...
The thing with integrity is that you can't really make people do it. You can encourage it, you can show disapproval if someone's got a blatant lack of it, but ultimately you can only really look out for your own. So that's what I try to do. Perhaps this generation will be so fed up of the bull that they gradually wise up to it in the future.
Light mentioned how the BBC lost their bottle in challenging Tony Blair, tabloids are a well known case...
The thing with integrity is that you can't really make people do it. You can encourage it, you can show disapproval if someone's got a blatant lack of it, but ultimately you can only really look out for your own. So that's what I try to do. Perhaps this generation will be so fed up of the bull that they gradually wise up to it in the future.
Although you could argue that political integrity has always been very flawed and the media has simply gotten better at exposing it.
Before World War One and the earlier bloody battles in africa people used to have more trust in the people higher up in the ranks either politically or militarily.
Then again more people used to believe in God.
There have been many changes that have gradually chipped away at these sort of ideals. "Survival of the fittest" and all that.
Before World War One and the earlier bloody battles in africa people used to have more trust in the people higher up in the ranks either politically or militarily.
Then again more people used to believe in God.
There have been many changes that have gradually chipped away at these sort of ideals. "Survival of the fittest" and all that.
And a shi**y media is another thing to blame.
Weak opposition is partly to blame.
I know that the world isn't perfect, but integrity is getting so far lost in this society in that it's almost discouraged. There seems to be this whole thing in "look and sound like this, but really do that...".
There's no way to judge someone's integrity, but once a lack of it has really been exposed (like Tony Blair's manipulation and GWB's everything) then we should recognise them as untrustworthy. People seem to turn a blind eye to it.
"That's how society works"
"That's what politicians do"
I think Light's question is, how did it come to this?
There's no way to judge someone's integrity, but once a lack of it has really been exposed (like Tony Blair's manipulation and GWB's everything) then we should recognise them as untrustworthy. People seem to turn a blind eye to it.
"That's how society works"
"That's what politicians do"
I think Light's question is, how did it come to this?
Page: