The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 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.
> 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.
Yup, spot on.
> 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?
(Earlier) Hedfix wrote:
> 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.
I'm not prepared to go around in circles.
"Think they're" not "actually are".
> I'm not prepared to go around in circles.
>
> "Think they're" not "actually are".
So what makes them THINK they're doing that good job? Approval from the public? Or a lack of integrity on their part?
Not "ARE".
Besides that would be different from person to person.
There's lack of integrity in knowing you're doing a bad job and hiding it.
> Depends on the person, whether they make bad mistakes and how they
> deal with them if they do.
Why should it only be bad mistakes? Why should who the person is make a difference? And that's the point; if they deal with them by denying that they've happened, or even denying that it's a mistake when they are fully aware that it is, isn't that a lack of integrity.
Mind you, I've been thinking a little more about this; someone who says "I have no integrity" has almost unimpeachable integrity (assuming that they live according to that statement).
>
> Why should it only be bad mistakes?
Because if they went around apologising every little thing they'd probably be viewed with less respect and become a bit of a joke. "Oh I'm really sorry I was 0.1 seconds late for the meeting, damn my tardyness".
> Why should who the person is make
> a difference?
Well if they're a role model or a person who is looked to by others for stability then they might need to be seen as more infallible than another person.
And that's the point; if they deal with them by denying
> that they've happened, or even denying that it's a mistake when they
> are fully aware that it is, isn't that a lack of integrity.
Depends on the mistake. Like I said above, if someone went around apologising for every little thing it wouldn't make them look competent.
"I've left my pen on the bus so I shall be starting an immediate enquiry into this matter, do you have any more questions for me Kirsty?"
> Light wrote:
>
> Why should it only be bad mistakes?
>
> Because if they went around apologising every little thing they'd
> probably be viewed with less respect and become a bit of a joke.
> "Oh I'm really sorry I was 0.1 seconds late for the meeting,
> damn my tardyness".
Okay, fair enough.
>
>
> Why should who the person is make
> a difference?
>
> Well if they're a role model or a person who is looked to by others
> for stability then they might need to be seen as more infallible than
> another person.
Would it matter if they didn't want to be viewed as a role model, and were incredibly open about this fact? Should they be held to standards imposed on them when they've made clear they don't think they should apply?
>
> And that's the point; if they deal with them by denying
> that they've happened, or even denying that it's a mistake when they
> are fully aware that it is, isn't that a lack of integrity.
>
> Depends on the mistake. Like I said above, if someone went around
> apologising for every little thing it wouldn't make them look
> competent.
>
> "I've left my pen on the bus so I shall be starting an immediate
> enquiry into this matter, do you have any more questions for me
> Kirsty?"
Why should it have to be an apology? Do you consider the acknowledgement of a mistake (if one is asked about it) to be sufficient?
>
> Would it matter if they didn't want to be viewed as a role model, and
> were incredibly open about this fact? Should they be held to standards
> imposed on them when they've made clear they don't think they should
> apply?
Legal standards yes and there are certain codes and ways of doing things in society that people would expect others to adhere to.
>
> Why should it have to be an apology? Do you consider the
> acknowledgement of a mistake (if one is asked about it) to be
> sufficient?
One again it depends on the mistake, an acknowledgment of a serious mistake would no doubt have consequences (possibly legal ones) and I'd expect the appropraite actions to be taken.
"Yes I shot the man officer, I've admitted it: can I go home now?"