Post by trashcanman on Nov 24, 2012 3:06:49 GMT 2
Cracked.com for years used to be a place where we could go every single day and find something awesome. We started many a thread here in The Fortress using their articles that were full of laugh-out-loud humor and interesting esoteric knowledge. Now, I don't know if I'm alone here in this but I simply do not go to that site on purpose. At some point some months ago a switch seems to have flipped and now all I see is uninteresting lists of lame obscure factoids, personal political correctness blogs stipulating what behaviors are personally unacceptable to said author, and other listings about obscure personal pet peeves written by people who are trying too fucking hard to get annoyed over nothing with little or no attempt at humorous content. Best of Craiglist does rants much better. In this thread we (or possibly just me) find Cracked articles so bad that they made us sad to think about how great that site used to be.
First up, an article from the beginning of the year about the most "sexist" comic book outfits.
www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-ridiculously-sexist-superhero-costumes/
Now the idea that an outfit could be in and of itself sexist is kind of silly. They could have gone with "unnecessarily revealing", or just changed the general topic to sexism in comics (with the WW bondage thing and all that). But often these kind of writers don't really comprehend the meaning of the terms they are using, prompting this reaction:
I'm also a bit mystified by the argument that the ridiculously-muscled and revealing outfits of male superheroes isn't for a similar function as the ridiculously sexy heroines' because men WANT to be strong and sexy. Not like women. Women spend not time at all wanting to be more attractive, nosiree.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it spawned this "how the fuck did somebody allow that to get posted?" piece of shit. In this epic throwdown of butthurt and logical fallacies, the author of the first piece, having been torn to pieces in the comments section of his article on comic book clothing-based sexism, writes an article JUST TO INSULT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREED WITH HIM. I assume to demonstrate his supernatural maturity for all the internet to see. Play the bad writer drinking game at home, kids! Take a shot or chug every time this asshole uses an ad-hominem attack in place of sound logic and you'll be good and wasted by the end. You may even have to go to the hospital to get your stomach pumped.
www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-stupidest-defenses-against-accusations-sexism/
Let me take on a few points made in this article personally.
It's terrifying because some people genuinely think the only reason you wouldn't want women to walk around naked is because you don't want to jam your dick in them.
Or maybe, just maybe, straight men often enjoy the site of attractive unclothed women. Maybe? Terrifying thought indeed.
"Misandry" may be the most efficient word in the English language. In just one word it condenses the self-denying assholery of "I'm not a racist, but ..." with the misogyny of "All women are bitches," throwing in a free persecution-complex bonus, because it's not like the user was going anywhere.
Okay, here's where we get into the lrn2english of it all. Misogyny is the hatred of women. It exists and is a word understood by all. Misandry is the hatred of men. Logically, if a hatred of women exists, so too does a hatred of men. Not controversial. So where the fuck did this nonsense come from? Jesus Christ.
It saves time when someone opens their argument by copy-pasting a dictionary. You immediately know they 1) think length counts over quality (which is why they bought that penis pump), 2) are incapable of stating their own thoughts and 3) are stupid.
Or maybe, just maybe, you clearly do not understand the meaning of the words you are using and the other person is trying to demonstrate unequivocally to you what the accepted definition of the word you are torturing is? Maybe?
When writing about the Star Sapphires and Wonder Woman, I used images of the Star Sapphires and Wonder Woman, and people screamed at me because not all Star Sapphires are Wonder Woman. DC has so many identical body-painted lingerie models that it's hard to tell them apart. Apparently, this was supposed to weaken the point I was making about sexism.
No, but maybe, just maybe, if you are writing an article specifically about certain characters, you could maybe show actual pictures of the characters for your examples of those characters? Maybe? If nothing else, it would help show you have some fucking clue what you are talking about.
According to gravity, each should have its own orbital satellites.
Referring to Power Girl's breasts. Now, apparently drawing a woman in sexy attire is sexist or at least makes the costume itself sexist, but making unsolicited jokes and comments about a woman's breast size is not at all sexist. Later in the article he refers to breasts as "pork spheres". Ugh. Certainly sounds like something a man who respects women would say.
This happens when someone believes himself the final authority on anything. If you don't agree with him, you just don't get it!
Funny, I was just going to make that comment about him, but he beat me to it like an irony-seeking missile!
Lastly, a recent one I stumbled on by accident and finally inspired me to post this topic.
www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-ways-people-try-to-look-smart/
Let me sum up for you the 5 ways people try to look smart by listing things they think other people do to look smart:
1) "Mocking the notion of God" Author mocks atheists.
2) "Pretend to like jazz" Author slips in that he likes jazz.
3) "Correct trivial mistakes" What is this, I don't even...
4) "Reference Kafka" Not sure this is a thing, but author is not only referencing Kafka, but goes out of way to show his superior knowledge while stating that anyone else claiming to have knowledge of him is "lying".
5) "Refuse to argue" So we are forbidden from correcting misconceptions, but author still expects us to argue trivial points? How?
Let me test this last one out using author's own examples.
Person A: Put on a sweater, it's cold outside.
Person B: Nah, I'm all right.
Person A: YOU'RE GOING TO CATCH A COLD!
Person B: Don't worry about it, I'm fine.
Person A: What reason could you possibly have to want to catch cold?!
Person B: [sighs]
Person A: Why won't you argue with me! Give me a good reason! Cracked says you are just trying to sound smart when you are stupid!
Person B: Temperature has no effect on whether or not you catch a cold, it's caused by a virus and I'm comfortable so I don't need a sweater.
Person A: HA! Trying to sound smart by correcting things that are wrong, are you? Now you are convicted as double-stupid by the laws of Cracked! So Kafkaesque!
Everybody together: Who says that?!
So yeah, what the fuck happened to that site? I haven't read a really good article there all year that I can recall.
So here's what I have to say to the guys posting this shit:
Anyone else been disappointed with Cracked's writers and want to vent?
First up, an article from the beginning of the year about the most "sexist" comic book outfits.
www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-ridiculously-sexist-superhero-costumes/
Now the idea that an outfit could be in and of itself sexist is kind of silly. They could have gone with "unnecessarily revealing", or just changed the general topic to sexism in comics (with the WW bondage thing and all that). But often these kind of writers don't really comprehend the meaning of the terms they are using, prompting this reaction:
I'm also a bit mystified by the argument that the ridiculously-muscled and revealing outfits of male superheroes isn't for a similar function as the ridiculously sexy heroines' because men WANT to be strong and sexy. Not like women. Women spend not time at all wanting to be more attractive, nosiree.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it spawned this "how the fuck did somebody allow that to get posted?" piece of shit. In this epic throwdown of butthurt and logical fallacies, the author of the first piece, having been torn to pieces in the comments section of his article on comic book clothing-based sexism, writes an article JUST TO INSULT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREED WITH HIM. I assume to demonstrate his supernatural maturity for all the internet to see. Play the bad writer drinking game at home, kids! Take a shot or chug every time this asshole uses an ad-hominem attack in place of sound logic and you'll be good and wasted by the end. You may even have to go to the hospital to get your stomach pumped.
www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-stupidest-defenses-against-accusations-sexism/
Let me take on a few points made in this article personally.
It's terrifying because some people genuinely think the only reason you wouldn't want women to walk around naked is because you don't want to jam your dick in them.
Or maybe, just maybe, straight men often enjoy the site of attractive unclothed women. Maybe? Terrifying thought indeed.
"Misandry" may be the most efficient word in the English language. In just one word it condenses the self-denying assholery of "I'm not a racist, but ..." with the misogyny of "All women are bitches," throwing in a free persecution-complex bonus, because it's not like the user was going anywhere.
Okay, here's where we get into the lrn2english of it all. Misogyny is the hatred of women. It exists and is a word understood by all. Misandry is the hatred of men. Logically, if a hatred of women exists, so too does a hatred of men. Not controversial. So where the fuck did this nonsense come from? Jesus Christ.
It saves time when someone opens their argument by copy-pasting a dictionary. You immediately know they 1) think length counts over quality (which is why they bought that penis pump), 2) are incapable of stating their own thoughts and 3) are stupid.
Or maybe, just maybe, you clearly do not understand the meaning of the words you are using and the other person is trying to demonstrate unequivocally to you what the accepted definition of the word you are torturing is? Maybe?
When writing about the Star Sapphires and Wonder Woman, I used images of the Star Sapphires and Wonder Woman, and people screamed at me because not all Star Sapphires are Wonder Woman. DC has so many identical body-painted lingerie models that it's hard to tell them apart. Apparently, this was supposed to weaken the point I was making about sexism.
No, but maybe, just maybe, if you are writing an article specifically about certain characters, you could maybe show actual pictures of the characters for your examples of those characters? Maybe? If nothing else, it would help show you have some fucking clue what you are talking about.
According to gravity, each should have its own orbital satellites.
Referring to Power Girl's breasts. Now, apparently drawing a woman in sexy attire is sexist or at least makes the costume itself sexist, but making unsolicited jokes and comments about a woman's breast size is not at all sexist. Later in the article he refers to breasts as "pork spheres". Ugh. Certainly sounds like something a man who respects women would say.
This happens when someone believes himself the final authority on anything. If you don't agree with him, you just don't get it!
Funny, I was just going to make that comment about him, but he beat me to it like an irony-seeking missile!
Lastly, a recent one I stumbled on by accident and finally inspired me to post this topic.
www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-ways-people-try-to-look-smart/
Let me sum up for you the 5 ways people try to look smart by listing things they think other people do to look smart:
1) "Mocking the notion of God" Author mocks atheists.
2) "Pretend to like jazz" Author slips in that he likes jazz.
3) "Correct trivial mistakes" What is this, I don't even...
4) "Reference Kafka" Not sure this is a thing, but author is not only referencing Kafka, but goes out of way to show his superior knowledge while stating that anyone else claiming to have knowledge of him is "lying".
5) "Refuse to argue" So we are forbidden from correcting misconceptions, but author still expects us to argue trivial points? How?
Let me test this last one out using author's own examples.
Person A: Put on a sweater, it's cold outside.
Person B: Nah, I'm all right.
Person A: YOU'RE GOING TO CATCH A COLD!
Person B: Don't worry about it, I'm fine.
Person A: What reason could you possibly have to want to catch cold?!
Person B: [sighs]
Person A: Why won't you argue with me! Give me a good reason! Cracked says you are just trying to sound smart when you are stupid!
Person B: Temperature has no effect on whether or not you catch a cold, it's caused by a virus and I'm comfortable so I don't need a sweater.
Person A: HA! Trying to sound smart by correcting things that are wrong, are you? Now you are convicted as double-stupid by the laws of Cracked! So Kafkaesque!
Everybody together: Who says that?!
So yeah, what the fuck happened to that site? I haven't read a really good article there all year that I can recall.
So here's what I have to say to the guys posting this shit:
Anyone else been disappointed with Cracked's writers and want to vent?
