The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hmmm...
I kind of equated that whole PR thing to being in a similar vein...
How you're encouraged to exadurate, "sell yourself", that kind of thing.
That's when people will start saying things that "sound good" rather than what's more like them, give a good "image" of themselves that isn't necessarily the real them...
So where's the integrity?
To be as you say or to say as you'll actually be?
I kind of equated that whole PR thing to being in a similar vein...
How you're encouraged to exadurate, "sell yourself", that kind of thing.
That's when people will start saying things that "sound good" rather than what's more like them, give a good "image" of themselves that isn't necessarily the real them...
So where's the integrity?
To be as you say or to say as you'll actually be?
Light wrote:
> 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.
That sums up my ranting nicely.
And the fact that racism is "stupid" rather than "evil" too. :-)
> 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.
That sums up my ranting nicely.
And the fact that racism is "stupid" rather than "evil" too. :-)
Strafio wrote:
> So where's the integrity?
> To be as you say or to say as you'll actually be?
Definitely the latter; the former means that if one says something rash (as all people are wont to do), they HAVE to stick by it. The latter allows for the fact that people do change.
> So where's the integrity?
> To be as you say or to say as you'll actually be?
Definitely the latter; the former means that if one says something rash (as all people are wont to do), they HAVE to stick by it. The latter allows for the fact that people do change.
So that's what I was saying about this whole PR thing.
People are encouraged to talk as they "should sound" rather than talk as they are. And I think that discourages genuine integrity and more encourages the sort that Black Glove was talking about - hastily attach yourself to a political view and stick to it.
People are encouraged to talk as they "should sound" rather than talk as they are. And I think that discourages genuine integrity and more encourages the sort that Black Glove was talking about - hastily attach yourself to a political view and stick to it.
Strafio wrote:
> And the fact that racism is "stupid" rather than
> "evil" too. :-)
Again, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The racism of Nick Griffin cannot be written off as stupidity alas.
> And the fact that racism is "stupid" rather than
> "evil" too. :-)
Again, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The racism of Nick Griffin cannot be written off as stupidity alas.
Perhaps that's me being a tad idealist.
I'll go and search about this Griffin guy...
Could I say that a lot of the BNP's appeal is a reaction to PC culture? :-)
I'll go and search about this Griffin guy...
Could I say that a lot of the BNP's appeal is a reaction to PC culture? :-)
Strafio wrote:
> Could I say that a lot of the BNP's appeal is a reaction to PC
> culture? :-)
You can say it, but I'd disagree; we have a perfectly serviceable bunch of idiots in the tory party for that purpose...
> Could I say that a lot of the BNP's appeal is a reaction to PC
> culture? :-)
You can say it, but I'd disagree; we have a perfectly serviceable bunch of idiots in the tory party for that purpose...
I haven't really had much to say on this but it has made very interesting reading and is one of the better threads I've read on here in a very long while.
Gives me hope that maybe this place isn't going down the pan afterall.
Just a point I'd like to raise though: What about those people that don't really have any beliefs or morals? The ones that just "go with the flow" as it were. Are they not capable of having any integrity as they haven't decided which side of the fence to end up on, as it were?
Gives me hope that maybe this place isn't going down the pan afterall.
Just a point I'd like to raise though: What about those people that don't really have any beliefs or morals? The ones that just "go with the flow" as it were. Are they not capable of having any integrity as they haven't decided which side of the fence to end up on, as it were?
If they're honest about it then I don't mind.
I think this is more directed against people who make big statements about their ethics and beliefs but don't hold to them in their actions.
I think this is more directed against people who make big statements about their ethics and beliefs but don't hold to them in their actions.
Your Honour wrote:
> Just a point I'd like to raise though: What about those people that
> don't really have any beliefs or morals? The ones that just "go
> with the flow" as it were. Are they not capable of having any
> integrity as they haven't decided which side of the fence to end up
> on, as it were?
Amoral people you mean? By their very definition, they couldn't have integrity per se. But to my mind, if they were open and honest about their lack of beliefs or adherence to a particular moral code...well, if they're honest about that then they fall withing my within my definition of integrity.
> Just a point I'd like to raise though: What about those people that
> don't really have any beliefs or morals? The ones that just "go
> with the flow" as it were. Are they not capable of having any
> integrity as they haven't decided which side of the fence to end up
> on, as it were?
Amoral people you mean? By their very definition, they couldn't have integrity per se. But to my mind, if they were open and honest about their lack of beliefs or adherence to a particular moral code...well, if they're honest about that then they fall withing my within my definition of integrity.
Page: