The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Black Glove wrote:
> 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?
Yup, absolutely. Hey, I never said integrity is always about morals that are considered good. Did you ever see the Louis Theroux program when he spent time with the American Nazi leader? That guy claimed to hate all non-whites, yet he was friends with a Mexican client of his. In other words, he had no integrity.
However, if someone is persuaded that their morality is wrong, and they state as much and change their views and stick to that, that is also integrity.
Integrity doesn't mean "Never change your views" imo. It means "Be honest about what your views actually are".
I can always respect someone who has integrity, even if I don't much like what they stand for (George Galloway would be a case in point).
> 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?
Yup, absolutely. Hey, I never said integrity is always about morals that are considered good. Did you ever see the Louis Theroux program when he spent time with the American Nazi leader? That guy claimed to hate all non-whites, yet he was friends with a Mexican client of his. In other words, he had no integrity.
However, if someone is persuaded that their morality is wrong, and they state as much and change their views and stick to that, that is also integrity.
Integrity doesn't mean "Never change your views" imo. It means "Be honest about what your views actually are".
I can always respect someone who has integrity, even if I don't much like what they stand for (George Galloway would be a case in point).
Hedfix wrote:
> 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
What makes you say that vacilating and outright lying about what their intentions are means that they can do their job?
> 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
What makes you say that vacilating and outright lying about what their intentions are means that they can do their job?
And that's the problem I've got with this whole "racist" labelling thingamy (I think it's the prime example).
People don't want to be seen as "racist", don't want to be labelled with the tag "racist"... even people who aren't racist end up being nervous that things they do/say might be "seen" as racist.
There's this whole thing about not being seen as a "racist" which encourages people to be "PC" instead of genuine. What I don't get is why people let racism offend them. Why is it offensive? It's disrespectful to judge someone by their skin, understandably. And racial abuse is bad, but isn't any abuse be it caused by racism or anything else?
All racism is is someone failing to see that difference between a black person and a white person is the difference between a white car and a black car - whatever genuine differences are, the colour is irrelevant.
They're just making a mis-judgement.
People painting it as "evil" when it's at worst "misguided", it just discourages people from being honest, doesn't it? I reckon the BNP is a direct response to this whole PC ethic. In someways I kind of admire the fact that they're willing to be honest, just so long as they never ever get into any kind of power! :-)
People don't want to be seen as "racist", don't want to be labelled with the tag "racist"... even people who aren't racist end up being nervous that things they do/say might be "seen" as racist.
There's this whole thing about not being seen as a "racist" which encourages people to be "PC" instead of genuine. What I don't get is why people let racism offend them. Why is it offensive? It's disrespectful to judge someone by their skin, understandably. And racial abuse is bad, but isn't any abuse be it caused by racism or anything else?
All racism is is someone failing to see that difference between a black person and a white person is the difference between a white car and a black car - whatever genuine differences are, the colour is irrelevant.
They're just making a mis-judgement.
People painting it as "evil" when it's at worst "misguided", it just discourages people from being honest, doesn't it? I reckon the BNP is a direct response to this whole PC ethic. In someways I kind of admire the fact that they're willing to be honest, just so long as they never ever get into any kind of power! :-)
Light wrote:
> What makes you say that vacilating and outright lying about what
> their intentions are means that they can do their job?
He means that if you don't play the PC/PR game then someone else will.
People are really encouraged to bullsht nowdays. Especially "proffessional" sorts.
> What makes you say that vacilating and outright lying about what
> their intentions are means that they can do their job?
He means that if you don't play the PC/PR game then someone else will.
People are really encouraged to bullsht nowdays. Especially "proffessional" sorts.
Strafio wrote:
> He means that if you don't play the PC/PR game then someone else
> will.
> People are really encouraged to bullsht nowdays. Especially
> "proffessional" sorts.
Then why are the people who do so successful? After all, it's us they've got to appeal to; so why do we find that lack of integrity appealing?
> He means that if you don't play the PC/PR game then someone else
> will.
> People are really encouraged to bullsht nowdays. Especially
> "proffessional" sorts.
Then why are the people who do so successful? After all, it's us they've got to appeal to; so why do we find that lack of integrity appealing?
Strafio wrote:
> People painting it as "evil" when it's at worst
> "misguided", it just discourages people from being honest,
> doesn't it? I reckon the BNP is a direct response to this whole PC
> ethic.
See, I don't agree with that at all; the BNP was a direct result of the NF dying a death in the late 70's. They actually predate Political Correctness by almost a decade.
> People painting it as "evil" when it's at worst
> "misguided", it just discourages people from being honest,
> doesn't it? I reckon the BNP is a direct response to this whole PC
> ethic.
See, I don't agree with that at all; the BNP was a direct result of the NF dying a death in the late 70's. They actually predate Political Correctness by almost a decade.
Light wrote:
> Then why are the people who do so successful? After all, it's us
> they've got to appeal to; so why do we find that lack of integrity
> appealing?
I think we've got this whole culture of looking and sounding good/professional. You go to a careers adviser and they'll tell you what words you should use and how to "sell yourself". Mum and Dad were getting at me to "play the game". I was never going to do it but they did have a point - I didn't manage to get a job (although I didn't exactly try so hard...).
Point is, we're all suckers for convincing presentation and when someone's flaws are revealled they tend to get pounced on. (Did just 10 years ago an MP resign after admiting that he was gay or something?). Our society really does seem to discourage honesty at the moment.
> Then why are the people who do so successful? After all, it's us
> they've got to appeal to; so why do we find that lack of integrity
> appealing?
I think we've got this whole culture of looking and sounding good/professional. You go to a careers adviser and they'll tell you what words you should use and how to "sell yourself". Mum and Dad were getting at me to "play the game". I was never going to do it but they did have a point - I didn't manage to get a job (although I didn't exactly try so hard...).
Point is, we're all suckers for convincing presentation and when someone's flaws are revealled they tend to get pounced on. (Did just 10 years ago an MP resign after admiting that he was gay or something?). Our society really does seem to discourage honesty at the moment.
Light wrote:
> See, I don't agree with that at all; the BNP was a direct result of
> the NF dying a death in the late 70's. They actually predate
> Political Correctness by almost a decade.
Maybe I'm just being a bit naive and scapegoating politcal correctness for everything. :-)
But I reckon that's playing a part. Sometimes people are being told "don't be racist" in a propaganda like way instead of understanding why... I mean, prejudice is just being confused... it's not evil, just a little retarded.
> See, I don't agree with that at all; the BNP was a direct result of
> the NF dying a death in the late 70's. They actually predate
> Political Correctness by almost a decade.
Maybe I'm just being a bit naive and scapegoating politcal correctness for everything. :-)
But I reckon that's playing a part. Sometimes people are being told "don't be racist" in a propaganda like way instead of understanding why... I mean, prejudice is just being confused... it's not evil, just a little retarded.
Strafio wrote:
> Maybe I'm just being a bit naive and scapegoating politcal
> correctness for everything. :-)
> But I reckon that's playing a part. Sometimes people are being told
> "don't be racist" in a propaganda like way instead of
> understanding why... I mean, prejudice is just being confused... it's
> not evil, just a little retarded.
For my part, I'd say we need to learn the difference between "He has just made a racist statement" and "He is racist". One can be guilty of the former without the latter.
> Maybe I'm just being a bit naive and scapegoating politcal
> correctness for everything. :-)
> But I reckon that's playing a part. Sometimes people are being told
> "don't be racist" in a propaganda like way instead of
> understanding why... I mean, prejudice is just being confused... it's
> not evil, just a little retarded.
For my part, I'd say we need to learn the difference between "He has just made a racist statement" and "He is racist". One can be guilty of the former without the latter.
Strafio wrote:
> I think we've got this whole culture of looking and sounding
> good/professional. You go to a careers adviser and they'll tell you
> what words you should use and how to "sell yourself". Mum
> and Dad were getting at me to "play the game". I was never
> going to do it but they did have a point - I didn't manage to get a
> job (although I didn't exactly try so hard...).
>
> Point is, we're all suckers for convincing presentation and when
> someone's flaws are revealled they tend to get pounced on. (Did just
> 10 years ago an MP resign after admiting that he was gay or
> something?). Our society really does seem to discourage honesty at
> the moment.
Why should "integrity" mean "Here are all of my flaws"? They're beliefs, nothing more. I'm not asking people to reveal faults; just to be honest about who they actually are.
> I think we've got this whole culture of looking and sounding
> good/professional. You go to a careers adviser and they'll tell you
> what words you should use and how to "sell yourself". Mum
> and Dad were getting at me to "play the game". I was never
> going to do it but they did have a point - I didn't manage to get a
> job (although I didn't exactly try so hard...).
>
> Point is, we're all suckers for convincing presentation and when
> someone's flaws are revealled they tend to get pounced on. (Did just
> 10 years ago an MP resign after admiting that he was gay or
> something?). Our society really does seem to discourage honesty at
> the moment.
Why should "integrity" mean "Here are all of my flaws"? They're beliefs, nothing more. I'm not asking people to reveal faults; just to be honest about who they actually are.
Page: