Rants and Complaints

Discussion in 'The WrestleZone Symposium' started by enviousdominous, May 5, 2017.

  1. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    If you're like me, you can't find closure with an aggravating circumstance or set of aggravating circumstances unless you broadcast your perspective on everything in some way. Twitter is full of malcontent assholes, YouTube is the bastion of the uneducated and Facebook is a safezone for suicidal narcissists. That's meant to be a small compliment to the WrestleZone Forum, and a huge middle finger to what social media has evolved into.

    None of this has anything to do with people on the forum or the social atmosphere of the forum, except as a subtle thank you for being higher minds than the rest. A lot of people I deal with are very lucky I use this forum as release by the way.

    So here goes:

    My Coworkers

    My coworkers love to talk, every fucking one of them. It's not that they'll start talking and not stop, it's that they find inspiration to talk based on any circumstance. I have several problems with that compulsion of theirs, so I'll break them down.

    If you did something that pissed me off, don't try to fucking explain what you did in a manner that suggests that you were not at fault and then (in the same fucking sentence) say "but that's not really an excuse". This is obviously fucking stupid because you wasted air attempting to absolve yourself of guilt, but couldn't acknowledge until you heard it out loud that you were putting a fucking bandaid on a fucking arterial wound. Telling my coworkers not to do this inspires them to make an excuse for their tendency to make an excuse that they'll immediately retract just as they did the previous excuse.

    If you have nothing to do with a given situation, don't stand in on a conversation and ask questions. Basically; I was having the purpose for write-ups that my facility had received explained to me by the evaluator. The evaluator was very professional, and he showed me every reg as it was written to back up what he was saying. Someone who I work with, but not as a member of my facility, decided to step in and ask questions that were of the tone of "That's a stupid rule. Hell no we're not going to start doing that". Then it became an angry evaluator explaining regulations to an overzealous idiot who, with every fucking response, proved that she wasn't listening to his explanations. I stopped her and said as nicely as I could "I have other things to do, and this has nothing to do with you. You're wasting my time." She shrugged her shoulders and went on her way. Twenty fucking minutes got pissed away because she wanted to get her thoughts out there and had not intention of hearing what anyone else had to say. Also; don't EVER get short with evaluators, especially if they're evaluating on someone else's behalf.

    My boss and my assistant are both very special people. If you correct either one of them, on anything, one of two things happens. They go into a long winded explanation of why it makes more sense to be wrong like them, or they laugh and act like they were joking the whole time.

    Here's my take on the "I was just joking cop-out"

    Jokes can be many things. A joke can be something like "I heard that Vince McMahon lost his arm in a boating accident. PSYCH! I made you look it up!" In that case, the person telling the joke wasn't being serious and they may delay the punchline until after you approach them to say that you couldn't find anything to corroborate what they said. Either way, it was a joke.

    A joke can also be something along the lines of observational humor, like "Have you noticed that con is the opposite of pro? I guess that congress is the opposite of progress!" There you have a joke that states a fact, that con is indeed the opposite of pro. If the person had instead said something like "Have you noticed that corporations are all just pyramid schemes?", you would likely call them out on the fact that their observation is flawed for many reasons.

    If your observation is flawed, you can't save yourself by saying "I was just joking, lighten up".

    My coworker said "The military is basically just a big pyramid scheme" in a tone that suggested it was a eureka moment for him. I told him that he was wrong, and while explaining exactly what a pyramid scheme is to him he interrupted to say that I was actually referring to a Ponzi scheme. I wasn't, so I had to then stop and explain what a Ponzi scheme was to him. He then starts cracking a smile and says "I was just joking" in the most patronizing tone he could have. I explained why that's a stupid excuse for being wrong, and he went into a long-winded explanation of how he often uses humor and sometimes he mistakenly assumes that people are capable of receiving it and blah blah blah. I started flat out ignoring him, and he spent the rest of the day (on his own accord) looking up explanations for "humility" on google in an attempt to save what he thought was our bromance.

    My boss called me up today, sounding pretty upset with me. A monthly financial report hadn't been turned in, which my coworker said he would turn in. She wanted that report turned in, and I was told that heads would roll if we were five days late on another financial report. I didn't throw him under the bus, I said that I would get it done right fucking then. I look it over, and send it up. Then I ask my coworker why it wasn't turned in, making sure to keep my temper in check because we're talking about my boss here. His story, which turned out to be 100% true, was that he had already mentioned to her that he was going over it with the accountant and that it was fine if it was turned in next Monday. I called my boss to politely ask why in the fuck she took that tone with me, she gave me "It's fine, it's fine. We all make mistakes. I remember that one time you..."

    Someone who works in my section, and is in charge of making sure that we're briefed on suicide prevention, said "I just wish I could blow my brains out" to me yesterday while I was in her office. I stopped what I was doing and looked at her, she kept on doing medial office tasks. I asked her if she's okay, and she explained that something crazy had happened with one office not finishing something for her so now she's in trouble. Basically; she had a pretty good reason to be frustrated, but it didn't sound like an "end of the world" scenario that would inspire suicide. I let her know that it's not normal to say what she said and be "okay", and she went into "I was just being silly, it's okay." and when one of her coworkers came in she whispers "Don't say anything". Mind you, I have a shit ton going on in my own world. After the coworker left I flat out told her "I better not hear that shit ever again, if you're not suicidal then watch what you say". Later on, I found out she was asking "What's wrong with him? He's acting funny."
     
    #1
    Stone Cold Tea likes this.
  2. ShinChan

    ShinChan Gone. For. Good.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    487
    Hey E&D! :wave:

    I agree that WrestleZone Forums is a lot better. Heck, I won't even consider saying it social media since Facebook, Twitter etc have defeated its purpose of being "social". So, WrestleZone Forums is something different.

    About the rants and complaints, I can understand what it feels like. People nowadays think too high about themselves. Too high. Even more high than Mount Everest. And then they don't realize that they're actually being stupid. And that's when their co-workers have to suffer. Just like you. Heck, you would find a couple of those here as well. There's a lot more stupidity nowadays. And that increases when someone is a boss as your boss' antics proved. People don't really know what kind of things sarcasm or joking requires. They're serious when they don't need to be. They're joking when they need to be serious.

    In nutshell, you'll get more and more everyday even trumping the highest stupidity you've ever suffered through. Don't lose your intelligence as well as patience due to such "Stupid Idiots"! Take care.
     
    #2
  3. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    That's the thing about this forum though, it reminds me that smart people exist in this world.

    The biggest problem for me is that the people I associate with suffer from a group-think delusion of "If everyone else does it, it's not a problem". In their case, they get lost in their thoughts and jaw-jack through several non-sequitur subjects until they stumble on a conclusion that's pretty fucking stupid.

    I have OCDs, but I suppress them and I use healthy coping mechanisms to do so. It gets on my nerves when people try to tell me that they just can't help doing what they do, because that's just who they are. When my OCDs aren't being respected, it's as if volcanos are erupting in my head. If I can suppress those, I see no reason why my co-worker can't occasionally glance at the clock to see that he has been stumbling through an idea with no foreseeable conclusion for the last thirty fucking minutes.
     
    #3
  4. Slyfox696

    Slyfox696 Excellence of Execution

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    There was once a time when the WZ Forums was of lesser intelligence than what one could find elsewhere on the web. I cannot decide if it is a compliment or a sad evaluation on the rest of the Internet if this is no longer true.

    From the little I read in the OP, it sounds as if one of the things which annoys you is similar to that which annoys me...people who think they know more than they actually do. Nothing is more grating than those who shout their ignorance to the world the loudest. And, for some reason, our culture has somehow instilled in people the idea all opinions are equally valid and deserve equal consideration. And this is just not true. Stupid opinions are just that...stupid. No matter how badly someone wants to feel relevant, an opinion which is wrong is still wrong, even if you hide behind the concept of "it's my opinion".

    I will say I'm not sure I agree with you about the co-worker blowing her brains out. I understand where you are coming from and I've actually had a friend whose fiancee did. She was devastated for a while. I agree with you it's not sensitive and it's especially odd the person in charge of suicide awareness would say it. But you are surely aware such a phrase is used more in slang than literally and perhaps instead of being so forceful, you could just remind the person in charge of suicide prevention there is probably a better way to express the frustration, especially since there are people out there who know of someone who has hurt themselves in such a way. In other words, don't be an ass. ;)


    PS: Oh and if I misunderstood the point of this thread, I was just joking about everything I said above. Lighten up. :)
     
    #4
    enviousdominous likes this.
  5. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    Meh, I'll come back here every now and then and vent if I feel that I've endured a relatable episode of people I'm forced to deal with giving me a reason to question whether or not the world has gone crazy. The only real point of the thread is that I get fussy, and I like to explain why to the few people in this world who can comprehend plain English.

    Your response, and ShinChans, are helping me lighten up.
     
    #5
  6. ShinChan

    ShinChan Gone. For. Good.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    487
    Yeah, majority is taken granted for being "right". Majority is always taken to be better in every matter. Although in reality, minority also trumps majority in many matters which is just ignored because it's minority.

    There's a saying that common sense is a flower that doesn't grow in everyone's garden. And it's totally accurate nowadays.

    And now I'll like to suggest something to you. This is a way I tend to take care of myself away from this stupidity and what not. When I get to know that a particular person is either stupid, irrational, egoistic or void of any manners, I stop giving them and their opinions much importance. I would rather be alone than be with a stupid group of sheep and the so-called majority. Their stupidity, irrationality etc kills any credibility their actions and opinions have in my mind. I try to be as far as possible from them. Don't care what bulls**t they tend to utter. Sometimes ignorance is good just for our own self. Earlier, I used to avoid this because of humanity. But nowadays, humanity is a rarity. Stupidity is taken as innocence. Innocence (the real one) is always taken unfair advantage of.

    So, stop caring about people who don't care about they utter and what effects it can have on sensitive people like you. Also, do vent out your frustrations once in a while so that they don't pile up and harm you inside.
     
    #6
  7. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    There's something in this world that bugs me to no end, and I keep meaning to vent about. Something that turns the greatest people in the world into assholes at best and homicidal maniacs at worst. This is more meant for me to explain (and perhaps relate) what I think is going through the minds of these individuals, and less meant to remind everyone of what they already know exists in this world.

    Shitty drivers.

    There's many avenues of that subject to go over, so once again I'll break it down.

    How I drive (warning; much bragging in the spoiler):

    I drive like someone who wants to live, which is coincidental as consciously I drive only so that I can get to a destination. I prefer to drive the speed limit, but I'm willing to go faster if the flow of traffic dictates that doing so would be wise. If there's a slower vehicle blocking traffic, that's fine. Life goes on, and I'm fine being a little late for something if it means getting there safely.

    Driving isn't that complicated; I either go, stop, or turn. If someone breaks the rules and that inconveniences me, most of the time it's advisable to let them be on their way. Those times where I must intervene for the good of humanity, I pull over and report the unsafe driver to the local police or highway patrol. I acknowledge that my attitude toward someone else's driving doesn't give me the right to risk the lives of other drivers, and I don't know what that unsafe driver has in their vehicle to use as a weapon if they feel threatened by me.

    I'm a highly defensive driver who, after 18 years of driving, hasn't been in a single accident.

    There are many types of shitty drivers out there. I'll start with the most obvious type, when someone drives in an aggressive manner just to show off.

    So I was at a red light, that was just about to turn green. This intersection is a bit unique. There's another lane to my right, but that lane ends immediately after one proceeds through the intersection causing any traffic in that lane to merge into my lane. I happened to see in my rear-view mirror a white truck -- driven by a "portly" white woman -- barreling down the lane to my right, so I chose to stay put while she rushed through the green light going 80 in a 45. The only thing that really bugged me was that she didn't give me a thank you wave.

    I proceeded through the light, and eventually caught up to her as the -- now single lane -- road had traffic that was backed up behind someone who was going the speed limit. We had a solid double yellow line separating our lane and the oncoming lane, and sure enough that same woman in the truck chose to get into the oncoming lane and speed past twelve other cars. The road went over several hills (which any rational human being would have recognized as being blind spots) so I was able to see that fate decided not to put any oncoming traffic in the crazy person's way.

    What I imagine was happening there was that often-times people will develop such a grandiose persona while driving, that they'll see other drivers as ants who aren't even worthy of their thanks when they're cooperative. The journey supersedes every other aspect of one's purpose for driving, and cooperation is something that little people do only so that they can be reminded of their uselessness. When you're out and about on foot, you're subject to the judgment of people who had chosen to use their valuable time to better themselves. When they're in their vehicle, they win every battle because -- for one -- their lack of empathy runs so deep that they don't even care if they or the other person gets hurt or killed and -- for two -- they can just move to a different district when bounty hunters start hearing about their unpaid speeding tickets.

    So, there are these people out there who like to follow the rules. I applaud that, most of the time. Hell, I've been a part of many conversation circles where the bragging of our driving expertise and adherence to the rules of the road became damn near homoerotic at a certain point. But, if you react with rage to the notion that someone else isn't religiously obeying the rules of the road, that's still shitty driving and that's never justified.

    Left lane blockers, Jesus H Christ I hate these pieces of shit. I've seen them in many ugly forms, but their purpose is always the same. They're upset that someone is driving faster than them, and they draw the conclusion that the other driver is attempting to measure dicks instead of attempting to make an appointment in time.

    If lanes are blocked by people going the speed limit, I bear it and drive the speed limit. I don't ride their bumpers and flash my lights and scowl at them. However; I'll admit that I'm annoyed at how they choose to drive.

    The most forgivable logic I've seen for this behavior is when someone prefers not to drive in a lane where there's a lot of other traffic. They'd rather be in the wide open fast lane, as opposed to driving the exact same speed in the slow lane with cars visible behind and/or in front of them. I personally feel that if being near other cars causes you to do something unsafe like block a lane of traffic just because there's fewer cars there, you probably shouldn't be driving.

    Less forgivable logic, that I've publicly scolded friends of mine for admitting to possess, is that the faster drivers are "breaking the law" and that for their own sake they need to be made to drive slower. That type of vigilantism is pretty fucking stupid in that the left lane isn't solely for driving fast, it's for passing. If traffic is being blocked, then that means that emergency and police vehicles are also at the mercy of their fucked up driving etiquette.

    Deliberately driving in a way to obstruct other drivers is a form of definite road rage that is exercised as a means of preventing imagined road rage. The assumption being that someone passes them only to belittle them for driving slower, therefore they have to teach them a lesson in the rules of the road by taking the law into their own hands.

    Sometimes people do pass to be assholes, and sometimes they do so in an area where such driving is reckless. If I feel justified in doing so, I report them and go on about my day.

    Then there's people who drive fast because they feel that driving is a video game that can only be won by driving like a complete ass.

    Peddle control is something that I take very seriously. When I drive (lookout, more bragging) I pride myself on my ability to pick a speed and go only that speed. If I'm in someone's way, I get out of their way.

    If I'm in a hurry on the freeway, I'll be in the fast lane going steadily at 15 miles an hour over the speed limit. I know, I know, shame on me. Now then; even at that excessive amount of speed, people often attempt to show me up by breaking the sound barrier. If I can anticipate them, I get out of their way so they can pass. At that point, now that they can no longer use me as an excuse if they're stopped by a police officer, they slow down. They slow down to a point where they're just pacing me while at my eight o'clock.

    These people don't have anywhere to be, they just like driving fast and their logic dictates that if someone is in their lane they have to be riding their bumper. I could be going 50 miles an hour over the speed limit, and they would still try to drive faster than me if they're behind me, or they would drive my exact speed if I'm in the slow lane. Their driving is at the mercy of how I choose to drive, they'd probably lose their fucking minds if there was nobody else on the road to base their driving off of.

    Finally; most of us want to be heroes. We want to be the subject of a "Good looking person stops bad driver" headline. If you witness a shitty driver, don't chase them.

    YouTube is overflowing with videos of "INSANE ROAD RAGE CAUGHT ON CAMERA" which is really just videos that have been downloaded (stolen) from other YouTube pages and plastered with a bunch of eye catching graphics. A common trend in these videos is the idea of chasing down, and confronting people who committed acts while driving that were deemed as unsafe.

    If someone forces someone else into a situation where they feel threatened, they have a right to defend yourself. It doesn't matter if the bad driver behaved like an ass, and they justifiably upset the other person. If someone reacts in a shitty way to a shitty driver, then they're on the same shitty level.

    Most of us are aware, from personal experience doing so, that a lot of drivers travel with weapons. It's a smart thing to do given that emergency services can't always be expected to aid you in certain parts of the country. Therefore, it's not a good idea to confront someone as a means of getting them to admit their earlier driving faux pas.

    The belief is apparently that when confronted, the individual will be so embarrassed that they'll apologize and swear never to drive unsafely ever again. Although, getting to the point where both parties can have a conversation with the potential for that outcome involves following the person to their destination. Most people don't want to lead aggressive strangers to places that they frequent.

    If the driving of the shitty driver was so shitty that it melted your shitty scale, be a good citizen and report them.

    To recap, I'm as annoyed with people who drive like maniacs as I am with people who think that an acceptable reaction is to drive like an even bigger maniac. In my wanderings through YouTube, I've seen comment sections devolve into six month long shit storms of hatred between people guilty of one or a combination of the driving sins I've mentioned above.

    Driving involves employing one's better judgment and instincts to make split-second decisions, poor driving habits don't always reflect someone's personal style outside of their vehicle. We'll never cure humanity of its desire to impose its will over others by any means available (in this case, a mobile hunk of metal), but know that you're not alone if you're also annoyed by the types of shitty drivers I've described.
     
    #7
    ShinChan likes this.
  8. Stone Cold Tea

    Stone Cold Tea Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    255
    One thing I've realised today is that these forums are a calm corner of the internet where people converse. Some of the absolute shite I've read today on article regarding the Manchester bombings is beyond belief.
     
    #8
  9. SSJPhenom

    SSJPhenom The Phenom of WZ

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    399
    I'll tell you one thing that absolutely drives me up the damn wall at work. It's when someone who didn't do something that they were supposed to do has a long winded and convoluted excuse as to why they didn't do what they were supposed to do.

    At my job I am what's called the Director of Operations. What we do at my place of work is we organize, design, build, and install booths and exhibits for the many people and businesses who attend trade shows here in Las Vegas. I oversee the building, planning, scheduling, and installation of said booths and exhibits. One side effect of my job description is because I oversee the building and installation of the customer's booths then the customer has access to me pretty much the entire time that we are working with them. For example, if they get to their booth and something is off, I'm the one that get's the phone call and the ear full. Anyways, last week, we were installing a booth for a customer at the Licensing Expo. During the installation of the booth, I had to leave to meet a client at the airport. (We also offer a shuttle service to our clients when they come into town and they requested that I pick them up so they could meet me.) So I left one of our employees in charge and told him that when they were finished that he needed to take pictures of the booth thoroughly. So I pick up the client, take him to the hotel, call my team and ask if they were still working or if they had finished, and they had finished. Since that was our last install for the day, I went home. About 4 hours later I get a phone call from the customer saying that her booth just looks horrible and that we need to fix it or else she wants her money back. So I asked my team leader if he could send me the pictures of the booth. This is the response I get verbatim, "No, I didn't get any pictures. My phone is full and I didn't have any space for new pictures. I was supposed to transfer all of my pictures over to my laptop but I keep forgetting. I have a mini sd card but I keep forgetting to put that into my phone. I'll put in tonight though". WTF????? Seriously? Just say that you didn't do it because you forgot or you're a dumb ass or something. Don't tell me that you tried to take a picture with your phone and it said that you didn't have enough memory and in seeing that you didn't either A: Delete some small item on your phone that wouldn't be missed or B: Ask one of the six other guys there with you with smart phones to take the picture for you. Because he didn't take the picture I had no way of proving to the customer that we didn't leave the booth in the shape that she had found it in and because of that I had to spend my weekend attending to this customer's every need as far as her booth was concerned.

    If you didn't do something that you were supposed to do then just tell the truth. Don't try to compound the crime by lying and make me think that you had no choice but to not do what you were asked to do, because that just makes you look even more like a dumb ass.
     
    #9
    enviousdominous likes this.
  10. Fire Marshall Bill

    Fire Marshall Bill Let me show ya somethin!!!

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    793
    I hate bad drivers. And I find it safe to assume everyone else is unless proven otherwise. But I keep my classifications simple. When it comes to bad drivers with me, you're either an idiot or an asshole, and sometimes you can't tell the difference. Did that person cut me off because they're an asshole, or were they too ignorant to see me? I don't know, doesn't change the fact that they're a bad driver. Sure there are the obvious ones. If some idiot is trying to race me because of what car myself or they are driving, they're an asshole. If someone can't properly stay in their own lane, whether drunk or not paying attention, they're stupid. Most of the time people are both, whether they realize it or not. I see no reason to delve deep into my own thoughts about what was going through their head when all it will do is distract me while I'm driving. Plus, they're not worth the time anyway. Idiot or asshole. Quick, easy and now I can go about putting them far away from myself.

    I feel the root of the cause, at least in America, is driver's education. They dumb it down so much that that's exactly what they get: dumb drivers. Plus it's just too easy to obtain a driver's license. There's a reason the Autobahn has no speed limit, yet has less accidents than US Highways. There will always be bad drivers on the road. Want to make a difference? Start at the beginning.
     
    #10
    enviousdominous likes this.
  11. ShinChan

    ShinChan Gone. For. Good.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    487
    From what you wrote, I can feel you.

    Here, it's even worse. Especially in my state. People don't care about dippers or indicators. They care about blowing horns without any reason. Noise Pollution isn't a thing for them. If they commit a mistake, they'll act as if they didn't and you are the defaulter instead of them.

    I have dealt with multiple accidents. The worst was me on bed for almost 2 months. Standing on one leg. With a crutches in my hand. Feeling handicapped. Costing my family a bunch of money when we were already economically unstable. Almost going through a surgery if not for a couple of good doctors. Somewhat of hearing loss as well. Why? All because a father couldn't take care of her little daughter. I'm ashamed to even call him a father. If you're a parent and you can't take care of your children that too when you're near the road, I seriously doubt your parenting. And that little daughter of that careless father came in front of my scooter. Since my scooter was in medium speed, I did what I could. I still thank God for saving my life.

    And what's worse was the timing. I was at the best phase of my life regarding academics and sports. It was running so smooth and then it happened. Plans were shattered. Mental difficulties that I faced and more importantly my family faced are what I can't even explain in words here.

    So accidents are horrible. Physical wounds will be healed sooner or later. Mental wounds, Damn difficult. They crack you up. More than 3 years have gone. I still remember the time. The date. The accident. Whatever happened. Deep wound inside me which hasn't healed yet. I was afraid to even ride scooter after that. But I've fortunately curbed it.

    So long story short, people need to learn driving/riding. If you don't learn it, you'll pay for it. And I guarantee you that you'll pay hard and huge. Also, children needn't be just given vehicles without any training by the parent himself or a professional.
     
    #11
    enviousdominous likes this.
  12. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    We're all guilty of being a malicious gossip every now and then, or at least I'd be very comforted by the notion that I'm not the only person who's indulged in such an evil and pathetic activity. You don't just transfer information and taint it like a demented spin doctor, you do all of that to incite negativity in the people who you're attempting to influence. But I've never gone as far as the subject of this rant/complaint.

    The mother fucking news media.

    Take the dumbest human being you know, and chances are they are at least capable of knowing when they're being insulted in a subtle way. It might not occur to them right away, but eventually they get the sense that you're not their friend. That inkling occurs to me every time I seek information from a media source. With people, I can judge what they say based on my impression of their credibility and double-check their claims. With media sources, I'm being treated like a very "special" member of the family who can't make his own decisions regarding how to make sense of the world around him.

    Recently, Greg Gianforte won a special election to be the congressman of the entire state of Montana. If you trust CNN to respect your intelligence, you'll be betrayed with constant reminders that his win is besmirched by his alleged assault of a Guardian reporter named Ben Jacobs. Now, violence is a moral wrong that still occasionally amuses most of us. Ben Jacobs was (for what I can interpret) grabbed by the wrist and pushed to the ground, so naturally reports came out that Greg had "bodyslammed" Ben. This incident occurred near when the votes would be cast for the congressional seat. Greg won (the fight and the congressional seat), and I (with all the power of my ability to perceive as much) believe that voters were encouraged by the incident to vote for him.

    Greg was charged with misdemeanor assault due to Ben not sustaining an injury.

    The point I'm trying to make is that media sources from either side of the political spectrum treat us like idiots, but the liberal side seems to be doubling down in that they're trying to earn lost congressional seats. In trying to find a credible source that reflects on public opinion of the media, I had to ignore the most popular results as they're more concerned with spinning the data. PBS once again came to the rescue of my patience and sanity by offering a poll that's not laced with resentment:

    [​IMG]

    Now, obviously we like to associate with sources of which we relate. And, the President of the United States is often the sole polarizing figure that splits us in terms of how we shape our dispositions toward the news. By and large, news sources (even those that overtly support the President) will be more anxious to share information that's negative in that we humans get off on being able to judge things in negative ways. Ordinarily a President will roll with the punches and assume a state of personal dignity by showing no emotion in the rare instances where they directly address a media influenced criticism. Now that the media has a President who punches back by denying access and by publicly shaming individual journalists, they don't know what do.

    Trust in the media is low, with me especially, and thus someone reacting with mild violence toward a journalist is something that I'll call wrong in public but silently celebrate in my mind. It's not just a matter of not trusting CNN or FoxNews, it's that their methods have become so extreme in terms of treating me like cattle that it's a bit relieving to see certain members of their militia recognize that trying to bait an emotional response will occasionally earn one.

    I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump, at best I'll reflect positively on his seemingly transparent persona. He's not, in any conceivable way, someone who is qualified to be head of state of the world's most powerful nation. Being the President of the United States has, in the minds of those who picked our current President, nothing to do with the consequences of putting him there. I believe that, while there are definitely good reasons to have voted for Donald Trump at the time, putting him in power was a means of forcing the media to take a long hard look at itself.

    I personally recall George Stephanopoulos laughing hysterically on ABC News when the notion was brought up that Donald Trump might win the Republican nomination. Well George, Donald is the President of the United States, and you're still just a talking head who got his job because a stuffy executive thought that you could earn him some advertising revenue. Donald did something that you could never accomplish, because Donald Trump is better than you.

    Most of us have dealt with the reality that someone who we look down on, accomplished something before we did. The media constantly reminds us of Donald Trump as being a horrible person, where any rational human being would be embarrassed to be associated with him. In effect; the media is feeding us gossip laced with truth, and their tone is overwhelming their message. While I didn't, and would never, vote for Donald Trump, I'm no less annoyed and insulted by how typically liberal sources of information are trying to enrage my senses.

    FoxNews has always been a safe space for the Republican party, and there was a time when it was their place to rail against a top executive from an opposing political party. Now it's as if they're uncomfortably coexisting as a member of the media, as they're not shy about reflecting on what they interpret to be an unreasonable response to anything involving The President from another media source. Their stories are the same odd blend of sexy smiling women, gun rights, misdeeds by immigrants and proxy minorities preaching their more extreme opinions of liberal values. For what I can interpret, FoxNews has become very responsible when it comes to reflecting on an occurrence involving The President.

    I'm not going to pretend that what I imagine to be the media's use of lowbrow tactics to bait my emotions aren't my own fault. I gravitate toward ideas that empower my sense of self worth, and placing judgement on the media from the comfort of my living room is precisely the type of attitude they're trying to encourage. That the news is fun, even if I hate it, and that spreading "head-on" on my forehead was my own idea. If the news was just pure news, its goal would be to make me into an indifferent observer who only absorbs information for the purpose of feeling more informed in a manner that I'd never use to influence anyone else.

    There are limits though, all indulgences have their limits. I would feel so relieved as an avid consumer of information if CNN reflected positively on Donald Trump's presidency, and effectively disowned Hillary Clinton. Perhaps they've already done this many times, and I've been so bent on ridiculing them that I've been blind to it.

    I'm sure that I'd be better off if I was proven wrong in everything I've shared in this post, but for the moment I feel that talking heads of every media source needs to dial back their pompous attitudes and let us voters deal with information without having to roll our eyes at their spin and tendency to exaggerate the impact of events.
     
    #12
  13. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    Everyone evolves socially. We can tell ourselves things like "This is just the way I am", but we never stop learning and we all have the potential to pick up a new mannerism no matter how set we are in our ways.

    Social media has taught me a lot about people, people I thought I knew and thereby considered to be good people. Outside of social media, and sometimes within it, we're wary of certain subjects that would benefit everyone if they were not brought up. Politics, religion and identity are three very vague concepts that can easily make good friends into bitter enemies.

    That was a big setup, for my rant on Social Media and how it's taught me to hate a lot of people I thought I knew as friends. There's two big layers to this complaint, so I'll break it down.

    The Social Media method of arguing like an asshole:

    Even if someone knows that they're dead wrong in an argument and that they don't have a leg to stand on, they absolutely NEVER admit that they were wrong.

    Above all else, they attempt to put you one the defensive. They'll question the validity of your statement and will often ignore your point completely, thus prompting you to defend what you've said and have to further explain your obvious point.

    My situation was that someone I've known to be a pretty good friend posted something to the effect of this:

    Q: Who was the first Muslim terrorist?

    A: Muhammad.


    Now, the first thought in my mind after reading that was that I have a lot of friends who are Muslim. I thankfully have never argued with them over social media. They're all wonderful people, and from what I've learned the Prophet Muhammad wasn't a terrorist. I realize that we all have our opinions on Islam, but I hope that anyone reading this would also think that it's a pretty fucked up thing to say to label a religion's messiah as a terrorist.

    I posted a reply asking: Which Muhammad?

    I admit that I was being a smart ass, but it was the nicest way I could have responded to what he said.

    His response (a day and a half later) was something to the effect of: Ali would have terrorized me if I was in the ring with him.

    Alright, fine. Now he's being funny. Long story not quite as long, I told eventually told him to go fuck himself and unfriended him. I resorted to that because in his responses he implied that I was stupid for not immediately drawing the conclusion that he was speaking of the Prophet Muhammad, and he kept taking cheap shots in regard to my methods of argument. Now, I've had my moments on these forums, so I know it's not that difficult for some of you to imagine me going off track or losing track completely.

    Let me be blunt, this guy is a fucking moron. I throw that term around a lot, but to have him ridiculing me and how I predicated my points was more than I could forgive. We all have those friends, friends who are cool people when they stay in their lane.

    This isn't an isolated case. I can't stomach Twitter because most people I run into on Twitter use the exact same method of chipping away at my faith in the human race. If they can't justify what they said, they'll resort to any means to break you down emotionally and permanently derail the argument. People are learning, through the comfort and freedom that social media allows them, to cope with their lack of integrity by trying to bait anyone who disagrees with them into living in their world of shit.

    Selective statistics creating false impressions:

    I prefer to keep friends who are capable of understanding what they don't know, and are capable of conducting their own research if they're told something with a tone of callous certainty.

    The new strategy among the shitheads who've matured backwards as a result of social media is to cite an FBI statistic that they claim proves their point. It should be noted that they'll often not state their point, in that outright saying that they hate Black people, immigrants or Muslims would give away the fact that they selected specific pieces of information to mislead on behalf of their hatred. They'll make a vague post, and expect you to connect the dots and join their cause.

    It works like this:

    Statistic A shows that there's disproportionately more convictions of a demographic regarding crime when compared to White people. Therefore Statistic A will be posted without regard to other statistics.

    Statistic B shows that percentages of instances of illegal activity are even among demographics, though convictions are disproportionate. Thus painting a picture that institutionalized discrimination plays a role.

    Statistic C shows that, when compared to White people, a demographic is disproportionately more often accosted by police officers in spite of being a minority in the community.

    If you weigh more than one statistic regarding an assumption of potential, you see a much bigger picture. I'm seeing people I thought I knew as good people falling for the scheme of having their delusions validated by a cherry picked statistic, and outright admitting that they think that certain demographics are predisposed to commit violent crime. They'd never go there if they were having a conversation outside of social media, social media gives them the confidence to let their inner racist asshole blossom.
     
    #13
  14. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    I feel I should explicitly point out that none of these rants are in regard to anyone on the forums.

    Something that bugs me to no end is the idea that people can change their attitudes on a whim, and will often deny that such a thing had ever occurred. I have a few extreme examples of this concept, that haunt me more-so because most people I've met deny that they even exist.

    The way men behave around each other when an attractive woman is nearby:

    When I was young, I was luckily able to find a group of friends that I related too in terms of our level of maturity. We would often throw parties, and at first we had an open door policy on who could attend as we lived in a very safe area.

    We noticed that one thing was constant every-time a fight would break out. The explanation was always "He called me a ******!" or "I was talking and he cut me off!" or some stupid shit. My friends and I noticed that such banter wouldn't ordinarily start a fight, except that on these occasions there just happened to be an attractive woman involved in the situation. When pressed, the guys would outright deny that they reacted more angrily because they were trying to impress a woman or because they felt more emasculated for being insulted near a woman.

    My friends and I decided to stop throwing parties, as the only other option would have been to only allow one gender in the house at one time. It was my friend's house, and a lot of holes were being punched into the walls during the testosterone fueled fracases.

    I'm glad that I recognized this phenomenon early in life, because everywhere I go I have seen examples of this. I've seen men who ordinarily act like assholes suddenly become cute because they're talking to an attractive woman. I've been cussed out by male bosses for petty matters (I worked in a gym, and asked if it would be alright if I stepped out to give someone a caliper test which they had requested. My boss flipped out because he felt that the customer should have gone somewhere else, for no fucking reason) in front of attractive female employees. I've accidentally bumped a guy who was with his girlfriend, and spent the next twenty minutes smiling at him while he explained all the different ways he was going to beat the shit out of me (though, no joke, he eventually apologized and we hugged).

    We men have reputations, whether they're warranted or honest. We have reputations as potentially good people, and we have reputations as potential sex gods. I think that we men often lean toward the latter, and ask "But how will it get me laid?" too often when considering a decision that may require sacrifice.

    Selective assholes:

    I can't be the only person who's been there. I've known people who just didn't like me, for what I can imagine was only due to having a punchable face. I admit that I've been tempted to form that kind of prejudice against people based on irrelevant factors like where they're from or what music they listen to. It just strikes me as odd when a third party is willing to defend someone who is clearly acting like an asshole, and in effect accuse me of being stupid, insane or a combination of both.

    What amazes me the most is that this person can go from reacting with disdain regarding anything I say or do, and then become cute and react with childish glee at any influence from someone else. It's as if the asshole has set a social standard, and they're holding back their rage due to my inability to meet their social standards. Meanwhile, someone who seems very nice and considerate has their full attention and they get along splendidly. When I appeal to the nice person, they tell me that I've misinterpreted meaning and that the asshole in question really isn't at all like how I've perceived them. When I appeal to the asshole, my effort to get their attention is another excuse to play a game where they win if they can no longer contain their contempt for me.

    Long after having to deal with that kind of social situation, the asshole will have had a paradigm shift of sorts and will suddenly be an approachable person whom I can have long conversations with. What makes that really interesting for me, is that they're still in denial about who they once were. At best, they'll feign ignorance and claim that they can't remember being an asshole. The other inexplicably nice individual who once validated them will acknowledge that they changed, but they won't acknowledge that they had originally disagreed with me when I called the asshole on their bullshit.

    Sometimes all it took to get put on an asshole's permanent shit-list was to be alive. If I see someone being an asshole, especially if they're a friend of mine, I call them out in private. It's taken over a decade for some people to warm up to me, but even then it'd be nice if after doing so they could admit that they used to be pieces of shit.
     
    #14
  15. ShinChan

    ShinChan Gone. For. Good.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    487
    The men being extra careful while a beautiful lady comes across is totally true. It's more of an effort to make a good first impression. You know, "First impression is the last impression", I don't agree with it though.

    Nowadays, I've seen some girls prefering someone who's loud, manner less and cracks lame under the belt jokes. Can't really say anything on that as it's completely ridiculous. Such behavior is now motivated and that always leads us to bitter consequences.
     
    #15
    enviousdominous likes this.
  16. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    Recent events have brought a huge pet peeve of mine to light. When two idiots argue, and they both appeal to you to be a witness unto the bullshit of the other party.

    A guy on Reddit, who thankfully has not been named (more on that later), posted a video to a pro-Trump page depicting the CNN logo on Vince McMahon's face during a clip of the Battle of the Billionaires.

    [​IMG]

    Now, I would have never seen that gif if CNN hadn't put it on blast by posting a headline of "Donald Trump punches CNN in a juvenile tweet". So yeah, CNN was apparently searching high and low for vindication. Donald did catch some flack for retweeting the video, and as usual he ignored it and went on with being the President.

    I'd like to point out that Chelsea Clinton posted this on Twitter as a reaction:

    July 2, 1776: Continental Congress votes for independence
    July 2, 2017: Trump auditions for @WWE

    So.... apparently Chelsea Clinton thinks that WrestleMania 23 occurred last Sunday.

    CNN apparently decided that what they should do next is track down the person who created the video. I can't think of a good reason for them to do that to be honest. It sucks to be ridiculed online and tormented with criticism from malcontents, but I really don't see that video as being as controversial as CNN made it out to be. It depicts violence against CNN, sort of. I acknowledge that Journalists have to deal with violence and harassment, but I think that CNN is wrong in their implication that the video encourages attacking or harassing its journalists. My impression was that Donald Trump was supposed to look like he was dominating a human representation of CNN in the midst of a pro-wrestling match, which for me doesn't translate to "attack a CNN journalist for thinking different".

    CNN apparently contacted the individual, and coerced him into making an apology for making a silly video that slighted CNN. The apology can be read here. My impression; that was the most candid and thoughtful apology I've ever observed, so kudos to HanAssholeSolo for showing some professionalism. However; people understandably became suspicious regarding the sincerity of the apology as it came out that this heartfelt mea culpa may have happened because of arm twisting from CNN.

    Last October CNN hired a guy named Andrew Kaczynski to bring his brand of investigative journalism to their offices. While Mr. Kaczynski does have an impressive resume for catching politicians and prominent public figures contradicting themselves or plagiarizing other published works, he gained his reputation while working for Buzzfeed which is well known as the least trusted news source in existence. I'm just saying, CNN should have probably reigned him in a bit during this idiotic meme saga.

    Mr. Kaczynski apparently recognized the backlash, and chose to explain himself. His explanation can be read here. Of obvious note is that last line, "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change". Umm, wow.

    CNN has been understandably tap dancing around what was meant by that, their statement regarding that particular line of text can be read here. What ticks me off about that statement is that I think they're attempting to mislead us into believing that when they said that the individual "apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter" that the individual just up and deleted his social media presence based on a sudden feeling of guilt. What they apparently meant was that the individual had deleted his account prior to a subsequent phone call to Mr. Kaczynski, which I believe occurred for the sole purpose of verifying that the memes had been deleted and that a sincere apology was written.

    What I'd like to ask CNN -- even though I'm sure they would just resort to filibuster -- is: "What happens if this guy up and recants his apology?" My point is; we all have the right to be pieces of shit. We all have the right to release the names of those who offend us online, but I think that it would be really fucked up to do that to someone just for pasting the CNN logo on Vince McMahon's head. I realize that apparently HanAssholeSolo also posted images of CNN reporters with stars of King David around their heads, but he doesn't strike me as your run of the mill social media hate monger. My impression is that CNN did threaten him, that the apology is bullshit as a result, and that what CNN did is petty at best and completely fucked at worst.

    It doesn't end there, unfortunately. Alex Jones and his band of mad raving dipshits at Infowars see this as an opportunity to be interesting for a day. Given that CNN didn't side with Alex Jones when he chose to demonize families of dead children, Infowars will pretty much jump on any stupid shit that vaguely mocks CNN. They've been featuring videos that have the CNN logo on characters who get owned in scenes from various movies where Donald Trump's head is pasted onto the heads of the characters who commit the ownage. If you want to look up the videos, feel free. I should warn you that most of them also feature Alex Jones cackling and belching out obnoxious laughter, and listening to that is part of what I'd define as a living hell. The obvious hope is that Donald Trump might tweet one of their vids, and that they'll get more attention than some obscure shmuck named enviousdominous ranting about it on the WrestleZone forum. Good luck with that Infowars.

    I'd also like to point out, in spite of what EVERY fucking news media outlet has been reporting, a clothesline IS NOT A FUCKING BODY SLAM!
     
    #16
  17. George Steele's Barber

    George Steele's Barber Advertise Here $9.95/month

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,905
    Likes Received:
    2,527
    Sounds like folks in the media are getting more and more death threats. So while you are not going to hurt anyone over the Trump video, you have some functioning brain cells, many Americans do not (i.e. pizzagate dude, baseball practice shooter, anyone who goes to Infowars).

    Victims of cyberbullying best defense is taking away the anonymity of the bullies. At some point the victims have to fight back to slow things down.

    Now leave me alone so I can go tell Y2JRKOSweetChin to kill himself.
     
    #17
    enviousdominous likes this.
  18. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    NO! You know what GSB? I won't leave you alone. You're too interesting and clever to ignore. You're like a real life Rick Sanchez.

    I agree that it sucks to get death threats, and that it's not crazy for someone to do something that might mitigate the desire of a social media lunatic to threaten to kill them.

    I don't know that CNN had received death threats as a direct result of the video or -- if they have -- if their reaction did anything to make the lunatics calm down. I'm only about 99.99% sure that CNN got their apology by dangling the threat of revealing the guy's identity over his head, which I think obviously would have resulted in threats made to his life (and if not, would have likely ruined whatever professional reputation he's earned).

    While I'll admit that by questioning the validity of the apology, I'm therefore of the opinion that the guy doesn't care one iota if CNN received death threats as a result of the video, I don't think that putting him in a position to fear for his reputation and/or safety was the right thing to do.

    I get it if you're just one person who's having his or her head plastered onto Vince's body as a means of depicting you being assaulted by Donald Trump, but this is CNN. I don't think that the video, in either case, would serve to rile up enough hatred to inspire someone to go nutso with a firearm. I think that it was a laugh at CNN's expense, and that CNN figured that they could furrow their brows with fake worry and confuse us into thinking that it was meant to justify violence toward journalists.

    Infowars is crossing the line I draw by depicting figures with the CNN logo being murdered, and I'm pretty sure that if HanAssholeSolo was filled with as much hatred he wouldn't have limited his effort to just using a clip from WrestleMania 23. To my knowledge, HanAssholeSolo isn't affiliated with Infowars.
     
    #18
  19. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    When I get really really anxious, I tend to write. So I'm gonna' rant about something that frustrates me and probably stuff myself full of fast food immediately afterward. My anxiety is based on the fact that I'm about to fall off the grid for six months, and I'll probably miss my dogs the entire time.

    Before I rant, I want to point out something. From the heart; CraveOnline is a great company. I say that as a preface to this rant because I think I speak for everyone when I say that WrestleZone.com doesn't contain obnoxious ads. Looking at the main page now, I only see three ads that aren't for services provided by the staff of WrestleZone.com and two of them are for the same product. Maybe sometimes a big movie will come out and they'll make CraveOnline an offer they can't refuse by having a brief trailer take over the page, but that's rare. I'd also like to point out that the ads on the WrestleZone.com are for actual products or services (appliances and home mortgages), I'll go into why I consider this to be a luxury later.

    So yeah, I'm going into a debate territory that's a huge no-no when it comes to posting online. How much I hate online ads. I swear that I know where the line is, and that I won't cross it. This is going to be tough, and I promise that this isn't some effort to garner cheap popularity by barking about a topical issue.

    The best way to do business is to earn as much money by spending as little money as you can, even if that means flat out lying to people and providing them with absolutely nothing for their time. There's been a rash of websites springing up that provide articles, that don't cite an author, and require you to click through several pages inundated with ads to read the entire article. The consumer is tricked into clicking the link that leads to the site with low-brow tag lines like "She didn't realize why people started cheering..." or "The trick to losing weight the government doesn't want you to know", the thumbnail for the ad is typically a photoshopped image or a photo with a red arrow and circle focusing on something insignificant. We all know this as click-bait.

    Every major news organization's website that I've visited has these ads, that don't provide anything significant except a little bit of revenue for the host website when it's clicked. It pisses me off that distinguished organizations with plenty of revenue to play with are pushing click-bait on every platform they have access to, and that they'll keep doing it because my outrage barely registers on their radar while they're raking in tons of advertising money.

    One solution, that I absolutely love and that doesn't affect ads run on WrestleZone.com, is Adblock. I'm not a paid spokesperson for Adblock, and I won't lose any sleep if me talking them up doesn't result in the product being downloaded more. The main reason that I bring up Adblock is because of their reputation online, which among websites that love to lap up their ad revenue isn't very good. Cracked.com went off on click-bait at one time with a fun article that can be read here. It's odd that they critiqued click-bait, in that click-bait is featured at the bottom of the page. Also very odd, is how about three weeks after that article was published they decided to go after Adblock. The article ripping into Adblock can be read here. The title notes that unto them Adblock is becoming yet another "sleazy ad company", which you'd think is a term of endearment considering that this article also has click-bait strewn throughout.

    I haven't gotten into the risky territory yet, so brace yourselves. Facebook and Google have gotten into the intrusive ad-game by literally pushing ads onto mobile devices. You may have noticed an ad here or there for a pseudo-pornographic anime girl mobile game or a desperate tv show with the little light blue triangle in the corner.

    Facebook runs a company called Ad Choices. If you read the statement by Facebook, notice how you can only "limit" the ads and your options for opting out only involve specific companies. If you don't want any ads at all, you'll likely need to delete the Facebook ap and clear your cache. I personally think that the ability to "choose" your ads is fucking stupid when what you really want is to not have stupid shit forced onto your personal devices.

    Google runs a company called AdSense. They offer you the ability to manage the ads you see, so basically it's another company that forces you to see ads but thinks that that's okay because you can choose what ads are forced onto you.

    I don't hate ads, I just prefer them to be honest and to be presented in a manner that doesn't intrude too much on my online experience. I'm fine with YouTube ads, because I'm technically being entertained for free. I draw the line when a website attempts to maintain a reputation as a reputable site, and it pushes dishonest ads for funding that wasn't earned by providing any kind of information, or product, or service to the consumer.
     
    #19
  20. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    It's been a wild year, and wild decade at that.

    To sum it up, it's been a year of accountability. Famous individuals have been held accountable for their uncouth actions, and have attempted to artfully explain themselves in ways that could salvage a thread of what was once their career potential. On the other side of the coin, some people who would go after those who we imagine had behaved in a depraved manner have had to take a step back and recognize that their behaviors were a tad excessive.

    We all have opinions, and not all of them stink. Sometimes an opinion is what makes you wealthy, and what makes you a timeless role-model. Opinions often masquerade as facts, especially if they're boasted loudly by an intimidating individual. A side effect of the Information Age has been increased awareness and scrutiny over what we're told, and from that opinions seem to have changed somewhat regarding issues like the definition of abuse, and the requirements of a sincere apology.

    Not too long ago, I had no empathy for anyone who disagreed with me online. They were unfeeling words on a screen, and I could shoot in the dark with random insults to see which one hit a nerve and dug deep. It was a rush when I would have an audience with someone who I truly wanted to hurt emotionally, and for twenty minutes or so I'd make every effort to put them into a world of misery that few things could remedy. What was their crime? Saying something sexist, racist, homophobic, or perpetuating a trend like "all socialists are evil" without having a discernible understanding of what they were trashing. I believed that my cause was righteous. It felt like I was tearing down people who needed to be torn down, exposing them as being more weak than anything they were mocking. Later on, with a clearer head, I would re-read what I had written. I said horrible things, to people who shared a contrary perspective, and did nothing to help either of us by doing so. I mention this because, for my own example, I've learned the hard way that it's kindness, not apathy, when you talk to someone like they're a human being instead of attack them for their perspective.

    With social media being a popular way to measure one's popularity, a lot of celebrities utilize it to connect with fans and haters alike. One celebrity, August Ames, chose to voice an opinion on Twitter regarding her refusal to perform in porn with a male counterpart who had also performed in gay porn. She expressed that she refused to perform with him because she cares about her body. That has been construed to mean that she feared that gay men spread viral infections, which I think would be a callous opinion though to my knowledge it's never been verified what she actually meant. August was obviously a somewhat fragile person mentally, and this likely contributed to the abuse she would receive over social media. August committed suicide on the 5th of December of 2017, most likely encouraged by the majority of social media users who reacted to her statement. Obviously a lot is up in the air with that, her friends and family have understandably wanted to remain private about the occurrence. August could have just taken a break from social media, or done any number of things to prevent her own suicide. August was a human being with feelings and a desire to be validated in some way, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that she -- like most of us on social media -- relied almost exclusively on social media to enhance her self-image. Her opinion may have been callous, but that didn't mean that she didn't deserve to live.

    One can open dialogue with someone who is, by virtue of their outlook on life, an enemy. People in positions of power have the privilege of being able to shrug off a thousand negative opinion's against them. Some horrible people have had to have their character assassinated across many social media platforms, if only to bring them to a point where they would choose to admit what they've done. Some horrible people have come clean without anyone calling their character into question. I define either person as horrible because they were of sound mind when they did what they did, and could have chosen not to abuse their power over other people. A very interesting dialogue took place recently between Dan Harmon and Megan Ganz. The full chain of tweets can be read here. Basically; Dan explains why he had previously admitted some fault in a mini-mea culpa, though he wasn't too specific about the incident or the person he had abused. Megan exchanges thoughts with him, but never backs down and makes it clear that his feelings of guilt shouldn't be absolved by their conversation. It was a moment where a thought-conscious victim met with a thought-conscious abuser, and I for one am a little smarter because it happened.

    Some people have excused their sadistic dialogue, and made bold statements like how they feel that a victim is at fault if they don't immediately seek help from an abuser, or that they wouldn't have been a victim if they had been stronger like a normal person. I won't name names, but I've had stop following a few dozen previously beloved celebrities because of how they reacted to clear examples of abuse. These are celebrities who have ranted endlessly on how entities like the Catholic Church and Penn State knew what abuse was going on, and did nothing and should forever be ashamed of themselves. Those same celebrities knew what their friends were doing, attempted to cover up what their friends were doing, and then some of them ranted that the victims don't deserve our sympathy and/or should just get over it. Abuse is abuse no matter who is committing it, and I can't forgive anyone who excuses it.

    The cycle of abuse perpetuated endlessly over social media can stop to some extent by having the strength to not engage in it, having the strength to disengage when things get too personal, and having the compassion to understand that not everyone can be that strong. Obviously it'll continue with or without you, but I feel that it's always better to let it continue without you unless someone you love is really in danger of hurting themselves. I'm sure many of us will be making a resolution for the New Year that involves being a better person, myself included. I feel that being a better person means being able to avoid indulging in negative emotions, and to promote good will even if it's unto your enemy.
     
    #20
  21. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    I don't usually get into the fray when there's a controversy involving video games. And I'm still cautiously on the fringe of what I'm about to touch on, mainly because when it comes to people on either side of a video game related argument chances are good that either side has an attitude that would make a sailor cringe. Gamergate introduced me to some pretty disgusting people on either side of the debate.

    Video games are like wine, even the terrible ones have a following. As technology evolved, certain aesthetics were discovered as being conducive to making people who play video games want to spend more money on them. Dare I, a very proud and staunch capitalist, suggest that there are moral limits to when a company should stop making as much money as they possibly can and by doing so afford concern toward addicts of their brand. Pretty much what I'm doing here is going against the grain of my fiscal ethics and rant about a particular genre of video game.

    Freemium games. These things are horrible, and are also insanely lucrative.

    Freemium games wouldn't exist if video games hadn't been built previously on a principal of ultimate achievement. You hack through an impossibly hard game like Ninja Gaiden and end up with an Engrish sounding "You are winner!" and thus have years of bragging rights among your peers at school. Imagine if one of those lowly friends of yours had a few bucks to spend while at that crucial moment in the final level and could invest that money into the game to not have to waste another week trying in vain to be as good as you. They'd probably go for it.

    For people who play video games; video games make us feel good, and they make us feel great when we are known as the best at them. At times we'll pretend as though it's not such a big deal, because having reflexes as awesome as ours make it child's play that a particular challenge was bested while it keeps several million other players blocked from discovering more content. Trust me; for all gamers the ultimate prize is being known among your peers that they cannot beat you.

    In video games, if someone says "you cheated, blah blah blah" after you defeated them, they just sound like a poor loser to other gamers or a complete loser to those who don't play video games and wonder why a source of pride could be derived from them. Freemium games with an option for players to play against each other prominently feature a ranking system, that provides a worldwide perspective on who is the best at the game. Notice that there is no such thing as a freemium game that has a worldwide system that differentiates those who paid real money for an advantage. By not stigmatizing those who essentially bought their status, these games tap-dance around the idea that you have to pay up to be the best.

    I'm guilty of putting real money toward a freemium game for the sake of easing the challenge of that game slightly by having a more powerful avatar. I would say, at the most, I've invested $10 in a game similar to the old 1942 game that I honestly never even play anymore. I might take pride in the fact that I haven't spent a lot of my hard earned cash on these games, but then I think about how many more weak willed people might have had the same attitude and thus it rained virtually-endless amounts of $10 bills for that company.

    I'm offended by the marketing practice, not because it's an unfair way to achieve status in a pretend world, but because it's literally an investment in nothing. These games are minimal in what they offer in terms of graphics and plot, and their updates are typically just a means of spending more money on them. The WWE currently has four freemium games that I know of. I've played them all, and they're all cheap garbage. If you paid five thousand dollars on any one of these games, you would find yourself only slightly closer to the status of an addicted whale who has collectively spent ten times that amount on their addiction. Spending money on these games gets you nowhere, and does nothing to encourage the developers to honor you in some way. If you want status, you have to spend more than everybody else.

    Time is currency. I have a few friends who religiously play games like Clash of Clans or Game of War, and they are completely oblivious to the concept that their time is worth money. When you're bored and want to kill some time, a video game is a fun alternative to reading a book on carpentry. When you have responsibilities and thus have a mountain of tasks that need to be completed, a video game is an unhealthy means of procrastination. If you really want to spend your money on a freemium game, it's your money. I find it startling that so many people don't even consider their time to be worth anything. Most freemium games employ a concept of having a timer setup to prevent constant upgrading or limit an amount of attempts at a challenge. My friends will literally be checking the time every minute just so that they can pounce back onto their phone and play their game some more. If you're a wealthy businessman who needs a vice to replace a more unhealthy addiction and can afford blowing through $500 every time they play a game, that's fine. I ask that people consider the amount of time they spend tapping away at their game, and consider just how much actual progress was made within the game in the weeks that they spent playing.

    The most egregious example of this concept is the concept of loot crates. I cannot play any game that employs or casually permits this marketing concept, thus I'm saying that I've quit all MMORPGs. Beyond loot crates, I'm as offended at the notion of entire markets being in place that trade real money for in game content. I even feel this way toward life simulators, where if you dig deep enough you'll realize that people only participate in them for sexual content. It's worse in these examples, because you're essentially paying a fee on top of a fee. Most of these games can't be played for free, you have to buy them or pay a monthly fee to experience them. These games can't technically be called "freemium" because they're not even free. When the experience isn't fulfilling enough, instead of quitting the stupid game and doing something more fun and less costly, there are people who will invest so much money into these games that they're stuck with a sunk costs fallacy if they ever think about deleting the game. That game is all they have to show for their efforts that earned that money.

    I wish that this was a problem like Bitcoin or the housing crisis where eventually interest would wane and profits would plummet. Freemium games are a totally different beast. If a game loses popularity, a new one is made and some of those who found the strength to leave the old one are now tempted to begin an entirely new experience and potentially get a head start on anyone else who might get on board. I don't think that mankind will ever evolve to recognize that there should be a spending limit regarding our own petty indulgences.

    We're going through a bit of a virtual revolution. It's not catching on with everyone, thankfully. We love to immerse ourselves in some kind of online persona, whether it be a Twitter handle with tens of thousands of followers who like every stupid thing that you post, or being an obscure curmudgeon named enviousdominous on the WrestleZone forums. For some, their choice in an online persona is that of the top player in Game of War. I personally think that it's horrible that people are charged money for what amounts to moving a little faster on a road to nowhere, and that games that employ that concept are shameless about advertising that their game is more addicting than the rest.

    I won't tell someone what their definition of fun should be. For some people, spending money on anything is more fun than anything else. For some people, being lured into an unhealthy spending habit which offers literally nothing in return when they hardly have the financial means to support the habit is more fun than anything else. I consider someone's idea of fun to be a delusion when they're only playing the game to cope with what they've become, an addict.

    I grew up on video games, prowrestling, and Pink Floyd. Video games for me should be something that you play for fun, maybe for bragging rights, but ultimately something where if you put it away and never played it again you wouldn't be out any more money than your original investment of $59.99.
     
    #21
  22. THTRobtaylor

    THTRobtaylor Once & Future Wrestlezone Columnist

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,327
    Likes Received:
    861
    With you on the freemium games, the WWE Supercard one was relatively fun for a while in a "can play it on the train or while queing type way... but then they started the "team" game, which you needed to be part of a team to get decent card.

    And almost immediately, posts on various groups from "team owners" came into being using words like "grinders", "proof needed", "must co-ordinate battle" and the worst one? "We get the event card in 3 hours?". Basically these losers who play a freemium game their whole life, cos they don't work, or seem to do anything else now expect others to do as they do and act like bosses... literally like the team is a job. Suddenly anyone who doesn't quite measure up was a "freeloader" and it killed the game for me.

    I DID find a good team, but even then it was too onerous...and it soured the game, and others like it for me.

    To be fair, the model of grinding is a big problem for me in games... it's pointless and kills the fun. Something like Elite Dangerous was interesting but ended up endless small missions and grinding when I worked out again, the "community goals..." grinded one to a silly degree as it was easy, and ended up with enough money to buy and upgrade any ship... so stopped playing as the challenge was gone. It even made the WWE2K games now where you have to "grind" currency to buy shit, or pay double the price of the game.

    DLC at times I don't mind... Fallout New Vegas was the pinnacle for me, where it was well thought out, added to the game each time and was worth paying for... Fallout 4, never bothered with...though I did for Farcry 4... but lo and behold, for 5 you need to spend more. It's getting stupid.

    Personally, I think some games like the WWE2K ones should work like this.

    Buy the game/engine for £15... it includes the basic match modes/game modes and 20 wrestlers, a couple of the "top names" that the E want to push, some dross like Rawley that no one is gonna by and a couple of tag teams... Then you select the rest of how the game works according to what you want... you want a retro only game with legends and oldschool graphics? that pack is £15, but there's no Cena, Reigns or the new guys and only retro matches/ring set ups etc... likewise, if you want the modern game you do the same...that too is £15 but doesn't include ANY legends...

    Likewise you can go somewhere in the middle and do an Attitude Era pack... no-one after 2002 included or before 1997 and everything more "adult".

    The key here is they get EVERYONE in the packs... so if you buy the Golden Era pack, everyone from Hillbilly Jim to George The Animal to One Man Gang to Savage and Warrior are in there and all the old tag teams.

    Same for the Attitude, so the Mean Street Posse, Gangrel, Al Snow and even Brian Pillman are in there. The modern one, use NXT to bump up the numbers with guys like EC3, Ricochet and of course Ronda...

    You can then have some DLC additionally that costs upto another £15, for move sets, exclusive character packs or the ability to have custom ring music, but the game still only costs you £75 tops to buy it all.

    Most would spend the £75 eventually... you'd get bored playing endless Hogan era stuff when you can't do Elimination Chamber or TLC matches for example but the idea of having that retro version would appeal to many fans, likewise they'd want the Attitude pack.

    The danger is that the modern pack would be the worst seller I guess.
     
    #22
  23. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    I got into WWE Champions for a little while, and it was like peering into the lives of the saddest human beings in existence. With most freemium games you're encouraged to join a group of other players so you can help each other out and such. The group chat had some insane examples of human misery where people were posting links to screen shots of messages that they had sent via email to the devs of the game complaining that they are upset that it costs $25 for a booster when it should only cost $20, or that they paid $30 for a chance to buy their favorite wrestler which they didn't end up getting due to rng and in the wording they share that they needed that money for their power bill. About every week someone would state that they're quitting the group because the game is causing their marriage to fail.

    To me, grinding is one of those concepts that these games subtly tries to discourage. That's a pretty obvious point, but I make it to elaborate more on the business model. If you're able to have a fulfilling experience not spending any money whatsoever, they lose. They all present you with initial challenges that you can easily obliterate with your awesome skill, and you'll level up on top of leveling up while earning what seems like more resources than you could possibly spend in a week. Close to the end of that period, they offer up an awesome deal where you can upgrade your stuff even more for the ridiculously low price of $1.99. If you spend that money, then it's obviously important to you that you have something to show for your investment. Then they start slashing prices, but only for a limited time as indicated by a ticking countdown clock, and offer you 1,000 of their premium currency for a 50% markdown of only $49.99. If you had stuck to grinding, you'd be going back to old challenges so you can complete them several hundred times over only so that you can be on par with the guy who happily threw away a weeks worth of groceries so that he could be better than you. Bottom line; to freemium develolpers, grinders are the enemy.

    I hate to admit that I'm a huge sucker for DLC. For me; it's not so far removed from the logic of spending money on freemium games. I could have the regular old game, or I could have the game with a season pass and thus challenge any of the so-so fans of a franchise on their loyalty by asking if they bought the season pass. The extra content is secondary to the pride I feel for having more game than everyone else.

    Fallout New Vegas had the greatest DLC of any game I've ever played. New Vegas was set apart from all the other Fallout games because of its DLC. Fallout 3's DLC was lame, and Fallout 4's DLC was pointless for me as I was playing on Survival.

    I'm honestly off-put by that business model. I'm somewhat spoiled by what became of games with character selection, where sequels had to offer more and more options while only omitting a few of the old ones. I noticed that you can download a bare bones version of the latest Dead or Alive game in the PlayStation Store, and you'll have spent over $200 if you buy all the characters and fighting modes and arenas. On top of that, you'd be spending even more if you wanted to buy extra skins for the fighters. I hope that some developers are still focused on releasing an entire game where you get extra content by playing the game and earning it.
     
    #23
  24. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    In what will likely be my most confusing rant of all time, and that's saying something, I've been urked by something that most of you are probably too socially responsible to ever encounter in the first place. The very presence of "Video Game Journalists".

    What is a video game journalist you might ask. I would shrug my shoulders, because I don't think that they even know what in the fuck one of those would be.

    What inspires my aggravation toward that lifestyle is that I recently played the worst game I've ever played in my life. This game was so bad that I won't mention it in the "What Videogame Are You Currently Playing?" thread, because I don't want ANYBODY to ever go near this game. It was a little ditty by a company called ID Software and was published by Bethesda called Rage.

    My (don't ever fucking play) Rage Review:
    You launch a fucking satellite. Oh shit, I just spoiled the ending.

    Now, you might imagine that with a video game that costs $60 there would be a little more nuance to the launching of the satellite. Maybe.... you had to fight your way past an epic boss and had to make a tough decision to launch the satellite and save all of mankind or save the love of your life. No, you literally just launch a satellite and that's fucking it.

    In Rage you play as an epic hero named No-name McBumblefuck. You woke up in a chamber of a space capsule that landed at some point in time, and a random guy voiced by John Goodman finds you and takes you back to a small town so you can run stupid errands for him.

    You need a car, so that you can drive across the map and do more stupid errands. The cars of this game were apparently the crux of why a game was ever created in the first place. How many cars do you get to utilize in this entire game? Four, and only three of them can fight back against bad guys.

    You walk up to people, and they immediately start with "My Daddy told me that the Sheriff is up to no good. But I doubt it. Them bandits have been causing all kinds of trouble, and we need the sheriff to yadda yadda fucking yadda". Can you imagine that? You're standing there at a bus stop, and some random stranger just starts blurting their entire life story to you. One guy had back pain, so he asked me to drive across the fucking map to get him a flower.

    You run through abandoned places to acquire random stupid items for other people that want them, and after the first half of the game you've seen all but one of the enemies that you'll ever see. That last enemy that you haven't seen yet is a big reveal for the end, and it ends up just being the same mutants that you've been fighting except with a pulse cannon on its back. You don't fight them until you're near the very end, and you'll likely have no clue that you're near the very end until you abruptly watch a fifteen second video of a satellite launching and credits. You kill some of those pulse cannon mutants, hit some switches, and you're done.

    This game was a tech demo at best, and an attempt to screw gullible parents out of $60 during Christmas at worst. I rank it worse than such legendarily bad games such as Plumbers Don't Wear Ties and Hotel Mario because this game was developed by a reputable company and then marketed by an even more reputable company in an age where you would think that this type of garbage wouldn't be possible.

    Everything about this game screams "half-assed". It's as if they had big plans, and an unfortunate combination of lack of resources and concern caused this pile of shit to be sold to us. I played it on PSNOW, so while I didn't have to buy it I'm still bereft that I lost 15 hours of my life playing it.

    Rage was given decent to glowing reviews by Gamespot (7/10), GameSpy (3.5 stars), Giant Bomb (4 stars), IGN (8.5/10) and PC Gamer UK (84%). If you read between the lines of their reviews, the consensus seems to be that Rage is a game that lacks in certain areas but has amazing graphics.

    Charles Onyett from IGN said in his review that "Rage is a visual marvel" and that "Rage controls smoothly". No Charlie, Rage is not a visual marvel. There's nothing that could possibly marvel anyone about what you see, it's another redundant barren wasteland game. You see a barren wasteland for the entire fucking game, there's nothing that happens that deviates from that at any point. It doesn't control smoothly, in fact the first thing I did was go into the options and set the movement sensitivity to its lowest possible setting because otherwise I'd be whipping my gun around like a moron trying to aim.

    On track and on point; there are fucking morons out there who are paid to tell you that shit games are visually stunning, and they're called Video Game Journalists.

    I get it; if I had an option to make money doing little more than lying through my teeth about something as inconsequential to the betterment of society as a video game, I'd probably jump on that. No wait, I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to tell me parents that at best, I'm a skill-lacking fucking bottom feeder in a collapsing industry. Video Game Journalists have chosen to professionally waste away as human beings so that they can positively promote the practices of an industry that often tries to feed us bullshit.

    At least when a real life Journalist feeds you bullshit, there's a strong chance that they actually had to go to a dangerous place or apply an education in Journalism to do it. People who get paid to judge the quality of a video game are doing so for only one reason, to sell that fucking game. What was supposed to be a form of consumer protection has become an arm of the video game industry to dupe you into allowing it to spend as little as possible on whatever stupid shit you've been cheaply duped into buying. At least when Yelp behaves abhorrently by only showing you good reviews for companies that advertise their brand and bad reviews for companies that didn't advertise their brand, you're seeing real reviews from real people. Video Game Journalists get paid to tell you that a video game that you're supposed to buy has "good graphics", in an age where any fucking idiot can take a computer programming course and pump a bunch of free-use content into a graphics engine that someone else made and thereby produce "good graphics".

    There are some great games out there, but you'll never hear it from an esteemed critic of the Video Game Journalist variety. Trying to find a good game in the mess that is their praise of every shit game in existence is virtually impossible.

    Here's a few of my reviews of our society's more famous Video Game Journalists

    Adam Sessler

    Adam Sessler of X-Play once did a review of one of the worst games I've ever played, Enchanted Arms. His review is on YouTube, and throughout he points out all the terrible things about the game. The horrid voice acting, the tiny worlds, the stupid story, and the moments of dialogue where it's just a still frame of each character showing an emotion while staring directly at each other. He covers all of that, and then he turns around and praises the graphics. Adam Sessler gave Enchanted Arms a 4 out of 5.

    Another issue I have with Adam is in how some idiot must have told him that he was a funny person, because he seems so fucking inspired to create a skit based on how he interpreted a game he played. Some advice for those of you out there, creating a comedic skit about a video game often misses the mark because people relate to video games in very different ways if they even relate to them at all. Most people watched Titanic, most people didn't play Enchanted Arms. I'm also not sure how seeing Adam dance around like an effeminate cowboy relates to Enchanted Arms.

    Jim Sterling

    Jim Sterling, who is famous for calling out bullshit reviews, up and created a video where he was frustrated with a game that I loved. He hated The Last Guardian. I get that video games can be very subjective, and some games aren't for everyone. What upset me about his review is that he wasn't playing the fucking game correctly. In the very beginning of the game you're given visual cues on the screen of how to preform the next task.

    The game will literally show an image of the controller itself, and show you which buttons to push to give commands to your animal companion Trico. If push the wrong buttons, eventually Trico will just get bored and show you what it was supposed to do. You'll be pushing the buttons like an idiot for a good ten minutes before Trico will save you by the way.

    Jim reviewed the game as he was playing it for the first time, and he grumbled with hatred for the entire time. He mentioned that it upset him that after telling Trico what to do for ten minutes, Trico would just stop fooling around and do it. Jim stated something like "Why in the bloody hell didn't you just do that in the first place?"

    In this game you hold down a button (L1 I believe) to initiate that you want Trico's attention. If you just press the button and let go, you say "Hi Trico". Clearly not what you intended to do. You hold down the command button, and press a direction that you'd like Trico to focus on. If there's an obstacle, he'll react appropriately. It's really quite easy. Jim was playing, and saying "Hi Trico" over and over and over again, upset the entire time at how the game was failing him.

    The comment section for his review was rife with idiots saying basically "I never played this game, but it's horrible."

    Angry Joe

    Angry Joe only plays a few of the games he reviews, and he doesn't play them all the way through. Case in point, his review for Dragon Age Inquisition. All Joe did was ask a few friends of his about their experiences playing the game, and then he filmed a fucking review. He didn't play a fucking minute of this fucking game. Albeit; it was a decent game and he gave it a decent review. Where the bullshit comes in was in how he described features of the game.

    Joe explained that in this game you could romance anybody, literally anybody that's a named character can be romanced according to Joe. He claimed that for his playthrough he romanced a dwarf NPC that gives you status updates on your territories. Now, you can flirt with a lot of characters in this game, and you will get rebuffed by a lot of characters in this game. The dwarf NPC doesn't even really rebuff you, she says that you make her nervous and then nothing is ever said about it. Depending on what race and sex you choose for your character, there's a possibility that you won't be able to romance anybody in the game.

    This isn't about misinformation about that one feature, this is about yapping like a jackass about a game that he never fucking played.

    Larry Bundy Jr

    Larry Bundy is great at doing research, but he's the worst attention ****e out of any of the other names mentioned, and that's no small accomplishment.

    Larry has bought into the practice of numbered lists. He often recycles his own information to bait clicks for a list of obscure easter eggs or rehashed video game conspiracy theories. His videos can be very fun to watch, but the whole point is to hook you in so that you won't mind so much when he gives you yet another watered down set of redundant game reviews.

    There's also the fact that he uses misleading thumbnails for his YouTube videos. In the same manner that Buzzfeed used to use a faked picture of a disgusting image to fool you into thinking that it had anything to do with their video, Larry will make a video entitled "Top 5 Stupidest Things Ever Said By A Video Game Reviewer" and put pictures of people like Jim Sterling on the thumbnail and yet nothing in the video acknowledges Jim Sterling.

    James Rolfe

    I love this guy, seriously. This isn't so much a review of him, as much as it is a review of the video game industry in general.

    James Rolfe created a comedic persona called The Angry Video Game Nerd, changed from The Angry Nintendo Nerd for copyright reasons. He does his best to rip into video games as a neurotic alcoholic dweeb who just can't be pleased, and oddly enough his reviews of video games are pretty fucking spot on because of this.

    Typically, video games are either so bad that they just don't get any attention by Video Game Journalists or they're bad in ways that a Video Game Journalist thinks they can cover up by praising the "good graphics" of the game. The Angry Video Game Nerd isn't swayed by good graphics, he explains to you what sucks about supposedly great games. He might be doing it as a joke, but he ends up pulling the wool from our eyes.

    A lot of games are fucking terrible, and were designed to be fucking terrible because the video game industry only gives a shit about a consumer as long as they're dumb enough to buy their horrible games. At times The Angry Video Game Nerd goes after a game that's famous for being great, but he shows us the flaws of the game that we had long ignored due to being so wrapped up in the obnoxious fad that was video games.

    James Rolfe isn't employed by a publication or obscure cable station, he posts his reviews for fun, while most other Video Game Journalists do it to float their ego. As his Angry Video Game Nerd character; if he's not warning us about a horrible game currently on the market, he's consoling us by showing that the games that we fucking hated and the other Video Game Journalists loved really were crocks of shit.

    James Rolfe is the only exception to the rule that Video Game Journalists are living examples of failure.

    I don't preorder games anymore. I wait, patiently, for the real consumer reviews to come out from real consumers and for the price to go down. Getting lured in by "exclusive preorder content" is impossible at this point, it's the same bullshit every time.
     
    #24
  25. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    737
    The Symposium is likely on the verge of extinction due to lack of use, so I'll happily spend my creative energy to share a concern that has been bugging me lately.

    The main subject of this post is, the obscene clusterfuck that is social media in 2018. (fair warning, this is going to be a big one)

    Social media is a strange place. It's evolved from a place where you post random thoughts with the assumption that only a few people in your circle of friends and family will see it, to a data mining empire where comments one had made when social media wasn't taken so seriously are now being used as evidence in the court of public opinion to ruin lives.

    Those that understand social media, no matter what their true intention might be, can and will manipulate it to push unwitting viewers into a state of mind that is meant to be very harmful to some and very beneficial to the person that shared it.

    Social media these days is oversaturated with commentaries on basically everything, if you have a question Google has an answer given to someone who asked it ten years ago. The only way to really stand out is to share an idea that nobody else has thought of.

    Infowars is one of many fringe think tanks that operates online in an effort to keep its fanbase in a steady state of shock and horror regarding vague conspiracy theories that have never actually followed through with a predicted result. These think tanks emerged due to a need to stand out with commentary that seemed more insightful than the rest, by predicting outrageously unlikely occurrences that stand on a shaky foundation of vague speculation being disguised as actual proof.

    Alex Jones has been the figurehead of Infowars for as long as I can remember, and there was a time that I had respect for him. I had had an unhealthy fascination with the Freemasons, and so did Alex Jones. When I was a young adult, it was fun to wonder if our government is being manipulated by a small group of oligarchs. Then I got to know a few Freemasons (I can't become one, due to being an Athiest), mainly through their association with my Great Uncle who I hadn't previously known was a Lodge Master in Canada. Today I can honestly say that I was wrong about the Freemasons, and I can say that just because some elected officials join a club that doesn't mean that the club has influence over how they exercise their elected duties.

    Alex Jones has never, to my knowledge, backtracked on an idea that he had attempted to exploit that later turned out to be false. Even if that idea is abusive toward individuals that are victims of a tragedy.

    We can often be fooled by speculation, if it's given to us in an authoritative and/or professorial tone that claims absolute certainty of its intended message. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the Zapruder film capturing the horrific moment also captured something startling. Just before the assassination occurred, a man named Louie Witt opened his umbrella. It was a very odd occurrence, that some believed was meant to be a message to Lee Harvey Oswalt to shoot right at that moment. Why would a man open an umbrella on a calm summer day with no chance of rain? Louie Witt voluntarily testified before Congress, and admitted that he opened the umbrella as the President was riding by in his motorcade in an effort to protest Ambassador Joseph Kennedy's (JFK's father) support of Prime Minister Chamberlain. Prime Minister Chamberlain is known to be the reason why Adolph Hitler was able to seize Czechoslovakia prior to invading Poland and starting World War 2.

    So, it's not always good to imagine that several vague indicators, or one major indicator as was the case with Louie Witt, to determine that a conspiracy is absolutely true.

    Alex Jones has since quadrupled down on his past transgressions, notably by encouraging his fanbase to harass the parents of children that were killed in the Sandy Hook massacre. I believe that Alex Jones was desperate to appease his investors from the NRA by implying that the focus shouldn't be on proliferation of firearms, and the inforwars fanbase followed through with harassment because they're fragile and desperately need to believe that they live in a world where the massacre never happened and could never happen. However; maybe I'm wrong and I'm just making an accusation against Alex Jones and his base that's no different than what Louie Witt had to endure. My point is that unlike Alex Jones and Infowars, I didn't have to ridicule families that lost children to have closure in my accusations being on a steady foundation of plausibility, and I'm not too proud to apologize to Alex Jones and his fanbase if I turned out to be wrong.

    Things have gotten out of hand however. Most people on the internet go there for information, and are more apt to regard an article's credibility based on how many petty social aesthetics are related to in the article. If an individual hates gay people, but are too ashamed to say so, they might believe anything written in an article by someone who often cherry picks articles that exploit gay people as being a menace to a well ordered society. Now that individual can wonder out loud about how gay people are negatively affecting society, and throw their hands up and hide behind doctored statistics and an author's opinions when confronted regarding their biased attitude. This type of belligerence seems to be the standard form of social engineering for racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and those with an unhealthy political bias.

    One other strategy is to manipulate others through false accusations of prominent figures in society, which are often meant to cover up occurrences in the manipulator's past that would make them a pariah unto their current base. The main reason for doing so is to make people who are appalled by something universally appalling relate to the individual conducting the manipulation. Bill O'Reilly had at one time done this, by going after judges who seemed to be giving light sentences to convicted pedophiles. Most of us are opposed to pedophilia, and thus we can be duped into believing that any other concern on the mind of Bill O'Reilly is inline with our concerns as well. It wasn't until I saw Bill share a video on his show that was obviously doctored, that was meant to depict a Black man as the aggressor in a fight that occurred in a pizzeria. The original video had already been posted to Ebaumsworld (of all places) and clearly showed that the opposite had happened. After that, I saw through the wool over my eyes and was able to see that I shouldn't be so focused on self-proclaimed demagogues.

    The Alex Jones Show has been regularly hosted by a guy named Mike Cernovich, who recently made a name for himself. Some of you may be aware that James Gunn, the director of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, has been fired by Disney regarding old tweets that were unearthed by Mike Cernovich where Mr. Gunn had joked about rape and pedophilia. Now, it's perfectly understandable that a company like Disney can't afford to be associated with someone that had at one time shared a sense of humor regarding such serious issues. The stars of Guardians of the Galaxy are currently petitioning Disney to reinstate James Gunn as the director of the Guardians franchise, but if I was Disney I'd give this a few years before I entertained the idea of hiring James Gunn back. I'm not saying that James Gunn deserves what has happened, it's not my place to assume as much. I'm saying that jokes about rape and pedophilia have no place in any format, and that that's as far as I'll judge James Gunn.

    Why would Mike Cernovich feel compelled to reveal these tweets? I'll get to that later, fair warning, the content described in the below spoiler will be very disturbing for reasons that will be made clear in the spoiler. I'm not joking, avoid opening it if you're easily offended.

    So, Rick and Morty is a very popular show. I think it's a fun escape where I can watch the cartoon character Rick engage in rampant hedonism. Morty is relatable as well as someone with strong inhibitions and a more steady moral compass than his grandfather Rick.

    Rick and Morty was co-created by a man named Dan Harmon. If you asked Dan Harmon about his past as a writer, he would likely admit to you that he wasn't a very good person but that he's made amends with those he wronged and that he strives to be a better person today. To my knowledge, he was famous during his younger days as a writer for Community and a director for Channel 101 for belittling and harassing female staff members. He doesn't hide any of this by the way, and has granted everyone he's wronged with an apology and accepted that not all of them were granted forgiveness as that was never a condition of his apologies.

    Dan Harmon also wrote, directed, and produced a skit where he was a time traveler who would go back in time and rape eventual serial killers while they're still infants in an effort to traumatize them and prevent them from carrying out their eventual murders. This was meant to parody the show Dexter in that a horrible act might seem less horrible when perpetrated on an evil person. This skit is the basis for why I put this section of the rant in a spoiler box. Awareness of it, means that one might look for it. Don't, look, for, it.

    Dan Harmon has apologized for making the skit, and for what my judgement is worth it was a sincere apology.

    The skit was unearthed by Mike Cernovich, and has since invited a tidal wave of accusations to flood the twitter feeds of left-leaning comedians. The momentum of this wave was bolstered by the reaction of ABC to fire Roseanne Barr from her show for sharing a tweet that implied that Valierie Jarrett is an ape. Valerie Jarrett appears light skinned, but she has close African American ancestry and if the one drop rule is still in effect then it's to be believed that Roseanne Barr was associating being Black with being an ape.

    These tweets have gone beyond merely mocking Dan Harmon for believing that baby rape can be viewed as a comedic device. Now the effort on part of Mike Cernovich and his Infowars fanbase is to imply that Dan Harmon is a pedophile, and is part of a pedophile ring among left leaning celebrities.

    A similar question to the one asked before comes up; why would Mike Cernovich feel compelled to share the video that was the subject of what's in the spoiler?

    To his credit, Mike Cernovich is a lawyer. A lawyer who had at one time worked with Alan Dershowitz regarding a successful libel lawsuit filed by Alan Dershowitz. He was also a young man at one time, and he shared a passive attitude toward rape on Twitter and in his blogs. Maybe he was only joking, but he had already declared his political views and thus wasn't going to get any leeway from those on the left. How this ties into his association with Alan Dershowitz is in that Alan Dershowitz had been one of the lawyers working to defend convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

    Now, I don't believe most of the hype surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. When I read the speculation surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's supposed influence I think about all the accusations surrounding the Freemasons, and my eventual realization that they're just an upscale club. There's been unfounded speculation that Jeffrey Epstein ran a pedophile ring and that he had Alan Dershowitz and Donald Trump as clients unto that pedophile ring. I can promise anyone reading that I myself have looked into this, and I haven't found any proof that Alan Dershowitz or Donald Trump are pedophiles or that their association with Jeffrey Epstein had ever involved that. But, some people fall into the "where there's smoke there's fire" fallacy and find reason to accuse Mike Cernovich of being a pedophile. I should also note that there is absolutely no proof that Mike Cernovich is a pedophile.

    At worst, Mike Cernovich was convicted of sexual battery in 2003 and was sentenced to perform community service. The charges were not brought by the alleged victim as she dropped her original charge of rape, and the judge then imposed the charge of sexual battery on his own volition. Mike has since shared tweets and blog posts that indicated that he feels that date-rape is a myth. Maybe he's a monster who really believes that, or maybe he was misinformed due to a series of unfortunate events.

    What we end up with is a false accusation of pedophilia against someone, and the attempted character assassination that typically follows such accusations, being made against someone who seems to understand how social media works better than those who were making the accusations. Things got real.

    I believe that Mike shared the tweets made by James Gunn not as an attempt to bring to light a wolf in sheep's clothing who wants to prey on your children, but as an attempt to put those with opposing political bias on the defensive. I feel that Mike shared the video described in the spoiler above to bolster speculation of a pedophile ring, but not to potentially expose an actual ring of pedophiles, rather I believe it was shared to keep the fires of discourse burning long enough for speculation regarding his own lack of character to become old news and to get revenge on those who falsely accused him. I feel that I should mention that I have found no evidence that James Gunn, Dan Harmon, Sarah Silverman, Patton Oswalt, or anyone else that was wildly accused of pedophilia by fans of Mike Cernovich are reasonably worthy of such accusations.

    Last I had heard, "Stuttering" John Melendez claimed that he had dirt on Mike Cernovich and that it would destroy him. And the beat goes on.

    I feel that we have to learn to let false accusations, even if they're for something as upsetting as pedophilia, be decided on the reputation of the person making them. A smoking gun like a tweet that clearly shows a flippant attitude toward pedophilia can't be excused, but I feel that a sincere apology and the assurance of decent individuals in their circle of friends should assure them a place as a writer, or a director, or the host of a show on Infowars.

    Social media doesn't like to forgive, and I feel that it has turned the court of public opinion into an emoticon-saturated contest of who can make the most immature and dismissive remark. Things can get better if we learn to mind our manners even if we're absolutely outraged at an accusation made toward ourselves or someone else, or if someone outright tries to destroy our lives. Mahatma Ghandi said it best when he said "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", which is a lot nicer than social media's current ethos based on the words of Bhagavad Gita that were "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".

    I blame Infowars for where the world has gone in regard to social media, and Twitter mostly. I feel that they made shots in the dark in an effort to get ahead of other speculative news sources, and doubled down everytime they were questioned on the validity of their claims. It seemed more attractive to fight their fire with more fire, and now social media is a blazing inferno ran by compulsive douche-bags. The king of these douche-bags, in my humble opinion, is Mike Cernovich.

    Mike Cernovich has never apologized for his claims that date-rape is a myth, among many others of the same level of being outrageously false and inappropriate, and has instead made every effort to shift focus onto matters that serve the tastes of the alt-right. He's also claimed that he's not a member of the alt-right, which in my opinion was only so that he could spin us in another circle with a pointless argument that distracts from the core point that he's a shitty person. For the record; I feel that one has definitely raped someone if they drugged them to the point of having a limited or non-existent capability to resist prior to having sex with them, which is the very definition of date-rape.

    If I was to go on a social media campaign to influence others to believe that Mike Cernovich is a bad person, and permitted those who fell into my influence to spread falsehoods regarding him, then I wouldn't be any better. Sadly, this is precisely how I see most of Mike's more famous detractors (like "Stuttering" John Melendez) fighting his influence.

    Here's a fun idea. Don't make jokes about pedophilia or rape. Nip this cycle of abuse on social media in the bud, and strive to be a better person without trying to positively or negatively effect a disreputable social media campaign.

    That's all I got.

    P.S. Leave the umbrella people of the world alone.
     
    #25

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"