The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hedfix wrote:
> Well, for some, I'd wager that being able to do this keeps them
> sane.
Why? What's so bad about confronting your own shortcomings and trying to address or channel them, rather than making continual excuses about why they're not really shortcomings in the first place?
> Well, for some, I'd wager that being able to do this keeps them
> sane.
Why? What's so bad about confronting your own shortcomings and trying to address or channel them, rather than making continual excuses about why they're not really shortcomings in the first place?
Depends on what you've done.
Also there might be people after your job and there's a large amount of motive right there.
I'm not at all sure I follow; are you saying that it's okay to compromise ones own morality in order to keep a job, or are you saying that if one has already done so, one may as well keep doing so? Or something else?
I'm not saying it's ok, I'm saying it's a reason people cover up their short-comings.
Politicians generally want to save face. Add to this that if they do think they're generally doing a good job they'll want to see it through rather than be ousted by a minor (or even major) mistake.
Politicians generally want to save face. Add to this that if they do think they're generally doing a good job they'll want to see it through rather than be ousted by a minor (or even major) mistake.
Light wrote:
> Black Glove; could you define what you mean by Moral openness please?
> I have a suspicion it's what I'm driving at, but I want to be sure.
I think by moral openness I mean that the way we think about things shouldn't be fixed, that we should be open to changing our point of view, and that this should not be seen as a weakness, either by ourselves or others.
In politics, for instance, a change in policy is often branded as a "u-turn" - why can't poiticians be allowed to honestly admit to a change of heart instead of being condemned for it.
On a personal level, it seems to me that many people hurriedly attach themselves to beliefs and opinions, then stick to them through thick and thin, even when they have begun to doubt what they believe, just to win the arguement (so to speak).
Changing oneself for the better - that's what morality is all about, and what annoys me is when people bury themselves in a belief system (or whatever) then proclaim what they believe is the only path of truth and goodness.
Hm, not sure I've defined what I mean there, or what this has to do with integrity anymore, but yeah, moral openness: the freedom to be honest about our thought-processes and beliefs, and the freedom to change them without feeling as though it's a weakness.
Something like that.
> Black Glove; could you define what you mean by Moral openness please?
> I have a suspicion it's what I'm driving at, but I want to be sure.
I think by moral openness I mean that the way we think about things shouldn't be fixed, that we should be open to changing our point of view, and that this should not be seen as a weakness, either by ourselves or others.
In politics, for instance, a change in policy is often branded as a "u-turn" - why can't poiticians be allowed to honestly admit to a change of heart instead of being condemned for it.
On a personal level, it seems to me that many people hurriedly attach themselves to beliefs and opinions, then stick to them through thick and thin, even when they have begun to doubt what they believe, just to win the arguement (so to speak).
Changing oneself for the better - that's what morality is all about, and what annoys me is when people bury themselves in a belief system (or whatever) then proclaim what they believe is the only path of truth and goodness.
Hm, not sure I've defined what I mean there, or what this has to do with integrity anymore, but yeah, moral openness: the freedom to be honest about our thought-processes and beliefs, and the freedom to change them without feeling as though it's a weakness.
Something like that.
Black Glove wrote:
> In politics, for instance, a change in policy is often branded as a
> "u-turn" - why can't poiticians be allowed to honestly
> admit to a change of heart instead of being condemned for it.
But isn't that what Light calls having "no integrity"?
Not trying to start anything here Light it was just I point I wanted to raise - just wanted to point that out, just in case.
> In politics, for instance, a change in policy is often branded as a
> "u-turn" - why can't poiticians be allowed to honestly
> admit to a change of heart instead of being condemned for it.
But isn't that what Light calls having "no integrity"?
Not trying to start anything here Light it was just I point I wanted to raise - just wanted to point that out, just in case.
Hedfix: so why do you think politicians have this impression?
BG: Isn't that definition of openness something that doesn't allow for people saying one thing and doing another? In other words, the same as my definition of integrity (ie. by all means change your mind, but be honest about having done so)?
BG: Isn't that definition of openness something that doesn't allow for people saying one thing and doing another? In other words, the same as my definition of integrity (ie. by all means change your mind, but be honest about having done so)?
Light wrote:
> BG: Isn't that definition of openness something that doesn't allow
> for people saying one thing and doing another?
> In other words, the same as my definition of integrity (ie. by all
> means change your mind, but be honest about having done so)?
Yeah, I guess it is.
But the point I was trying to make initially (not sure if it's that relevant) was that a lot of the time people labelled as having integrity often are just those who've stuck to their guns, and I was questioning what this great virtue of integrity is really worth.
Does someone with extreme, say racist beliefs, who boldly stands by them and keeps to his principles no matter what the opposition is, have integrity?
> BG: Isn't that definition of openness something that doesn't allow
> for people saying one thing and doing another?
> In other words, the same as my definition of integrity (ie. by all
> means change your mind, but be honest about having done so)?
Yeah, I guess it is.
But the point I was trying to make initially (not sure if it's that relevant) was that a lot of the time people labelled as having integrity often are just those who've stuck to their guns, and I was questioning what this great virtue of integrity is really worth.
Does someone with extreme, say racist beliefs, who boldly stands by them and keeps to his principles no matter what the opposition is, have integrity?
Light wrote:
> Hedfix: so why do you think politicians have this impression?
Because it's a dog eat dog world and if you can't do your job: then someone else can (atleast they think that they can). :D
> Hedfix: so why do you think politicians have this impression?
Because it's a dog eat dog world and if you can't do your job: then someone else can (atleast they think that they can). :D
Page: