Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:29:08 AM

Login with username, password and session length

6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person

Started by 23 Daves, December 23, 2012, 01:46:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

McDead

Quote from: Danger Man on December 23, 2012, 08:17:38 PM
It's interesting how 'improve your life' is seen as right-wing by several people on this forum.

A tacit admission that 'do nothing' is the lefties default option.

Utter balls.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Danger Man on December 23, 2012, 08:17:38 PM
It's interesting how 'improve your life' is seen as right-wing by several people on this forum.

A tacit admission that 'do nothing' is the lefties default option.
Not so much 'Do nothing' as do stuff that doesnt work forever and never learn to adapt or change.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Danger Man on December 23, 2012, 08:17:38 PM
It's interesting how 'improve your life' is seen as right-wing by several people on this forum.

A tacit admission that 'do nothing' is the lefties default option.
Not so much 'Do nothing' as do stuff that doesnt work forever and never learn to adapt or change.

Buelligan

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 23, 2012, 09:00:44 PM
Not so much 'Do nothing' as do stuff that doesnt work forever and never learn to adapt or change.
Quote from: biggytitbo on December 23, 2012, 09:00:44 PM
Not so much 'Do nothing' as do stuff that doesnt work forever and never learn to adapt or change.

Rehehehealllllllyyyyyy?

biggytitbo



Petey Pate

I'm 50/50 about the article as well.  This is partly due to me being a waster of the kind its author is decrying against, cruising along life aimlessly with poorly realised ambitions seldom acted upon, so it struck a chord with me in realising how lazy I generally am.  For this reason I did find it somewhat inspiring.   

That said it is massively opinionated and overgeneralising.  As people have pointed out it doesn't take into consideration people in positions other than the author's own, and its underlying tone of "GO GET LAID YOU PUSSY" is unpleasant (as are the cracked articles in this vein, I often find myself reading those in the voice of R. Lee Ermey).  I also think that the reasons why people lack motivation are more complex than the reasons Wang suggests.  Douglas Adams had to have novels squeezed out of him like toothpaste, while other writers would write prolifically, but more than 90% they'd discard - creativity isn't necessarily aligned with productivity.  My own productivity depends according to my mood, I do more when I'm cheerful and less when I'm hungover/miserable/ill (which seems to be most of the time). 

He's also wrong to suggest that just because somebody does something, that doesn't mean what they do is necessarily of any value.  Particularly in the creative arts, there is a myriad of garbage out there.  I risk sounding elitist, but irony and post-modernism have become so dominant the line between recognising genuine talent and hackwork has become increasing blurred.  Considering the success of the Black Eyed Peas, Stephanie Meyer, Damien Hurst, Jack Whitehall, e.t.c. the point of creating anything with any real effort or talent put in seems increasingly difficult to at least make a comfortable living from.  Not many are complacent with settling with producing unchallenging garbage cynically aimed at the lowest common denominator, so ultimately they just give up.

TrenterPercenter

The No.1 Harsh Truth:



The article is a load of shit.




End of thread.[nb]Alec Baldwin said so[/nb]

olliebean

Quote from: Danger Man on December 23, 2012, 08:17:38 PM
It's interesting how 'improve your life' is seen as right-wing by several people on this forum.

A tacit admission that 'do nothing' is the lefties default option.

It's not simply "improve your life" that's seen as right-wing. It's the mentality that anyone can achieve what they want in life, held by people who've had plenty of help to achieve what they wanted and taken that so much for granted that they don't quite understand that many people don't have access to the same advantages that they have had. Which then leads to them at best looking down on and at worst demonising the people without those advantages on the grounds that they're "just not trying hard enough" (or that "'do nothing' is their default option" - cf. "the benefit scroungers who stay at home all day with the blinds down").

Retinend

Alright so this is the central metaphor of the article:

QuoteConfused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my (wife/husband/best friend/parent) is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?"
Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?
In that panicked moment, you will take your bloody hands and shake him by the shoulders, screaming, "Yes, I'm saying that none of that other shit matters, because in this specific situation, I just need somebody who can stop the bleeding, you crazy fucking asshole."

Like the whole article, it is difficult to say whether its accuracies are more generally true than the inaccuracies are generally false.

To start with the inaccuracies of the metaphor, the main one is that for most people, the things we most want from other people are not things we formally exchange favours for (things and skills bought and sold). We mainly want to be treated well by the people around us, and we would be upset to think that for being treated well we have only demand for our professional skills to thank. We want to be liked, loved, and thought about positively. We exchange things like jokes and company for these goals, but it's hardly the same thinking as "I need a promotion."

His main accuracy was his general target of entitlement and inflated self-worth. "Slacker" might not be a popular term on the left, but there's nothing right wing about calling people out on defending laziness. Maybe a left-wing political view might discourage you from seeking conventional success in an "immoral system," but can anyone say with a straight face that in a world of things happening, there is no place for such a delicate snowflake to demonstrate their inner-inner-inner-innner-inner immense worth and boundless, deep, rich, potential? As a polemic against that sort of thinking, I think the article hits its mark.

The article that Wong admits he based his own on does it better, though (though watch out, Mr. Cab-consensus, it's much more right wing than Wong):

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html#c028330

QuoteFact: college is a waste, but we haven't yet hit that point in society where we can bypass it.  So we have to pass through another generation of massive college debt.  How to pull in the suckers in?  Answer: these articles.  By getting you to say, "these hipsters should be able to get jobs because they are college graduates!" you are saying, "college is worth something."  It isn't.  But by directing your hate towards hipsters, you are protecting the system against change.

"It isn't."

Still Not George

QuoteEveryone who doesn't agree with us is in really strong disagreement. Therefore we must be right because, er, THE LEFT!

Not only is there not anything like unanimity (there's like 3 people at least openly agreeing with the article), the vitriol isn't even as strong as you're trying to claim it is. The response has mostly been more dismissive than vitriolic, and rightly so - it's not a convincing manifesto for a New Way, it's some dick on cracked.com wanking on to get hits. There's no "there" there.

Of course, that doesn't fit the "you can't handle the HARSH TRUTH!" narrative, so do carry on the circular masturbation.

Sam

Oliver Bukeman writes a very witty, self- deprecating and incisive column in the Saturday Guardian called 'This Column Will Change Your Life'. It's everything that the Cracked article isnt, but wants to be. Amusingly, the latest Burkeman column is written in an sarcastic style where he apes wrong headed advice and his joke version is rather similiar to the presumably earnest original article.

It's reading genuinely good journalism like Burkeman's that exposes Mr Wong for the hack he is. The reason people are up in arms about it is because it's so poorly written and thought out and there are plenty of great journalists and writers who can do this much better. The article is just a waste of time.

I also think TBC and other more sympathetic posters are being too fair. The sentiments expressed are admirable, but having an open mind is something that should extend to knowing when to shut it, just as being really friendly to everyone mostly works except when dealing with murders and people to whom it bounces off.

Knowing which stuff to ignore just helps you invest more in other more interesting and enjoyable things. I realise you can get into habits with what you consume, intellectually and otherwise, but by the same token it's pretty easy to instinctively smell bullshit.

Sam

By the way, 23 Daves, although the article didn't get the response you were expecting, I, and others I'm sure, are glad you posted it as it's provoked some interesting discussion. I may be speaking for others also when I say that I don't 'hate' the article. I think there's a sort of unsaid 'house style' on CaB of out of proportion vitriol, often peppered with the profane and undercut with mundane. I just find it more fun to hate everything - it lends itself well to funny writing and I'm too lazy to write long, evenhanded posts most of the time.

Unoriginal

Anyone who appoints themselves as the arbiter of 'harsh truths', the brave crusader who says what needs to be said to your face is invariably the biggest cunt you know. Their idea of being a success is being a massive cunt and anyone who takes their advice is also a cunt. If you need to be told that to be good at something you need to practice then you're too stupid ever to do anything of note.

wosl

#74
Quote from: Petey Pate on December 23, 2012, 10:16:51 PMParticularly in the creative arts, there is a myriad of garbage out there.  I risk sounding elitist, but irony and post-modernism have become so dominant the line between recognising genuine talent and hackwork has become increasing blurred.  Considering the success of the Black Eyed Peas, Stephanie Meyer, Damien Hurst, Jack Whitehall, e.t.c. the point of creating anything with any real effort or talent put in seems increasingly difficult to at least make a comfortable living from.  Not many are complacent with settling with producing unchallenging garbage cynically aimed at the lowest common denominator, so ultimately they just give up.

It's hard to knock Hirst from the point of view of effort.  Despite his flashy means, he's a highly motivated, highly organized doer, like the more traditional but also highly-motivated David Hockney.  He's always seen stuff through to completion.  Can't imagine him spazzing too many ideas away into the ether talking to his mates down the pub.  His mature work has always looked expensive to make, so from quite early on he must've had the 'ability' to risk in order to actually get things made.  I don't get much out of looking at his art, but I can appreciate that it took and takes a specific kind of manic, speculative, relentless sort of energy to make it a concrete fact in the world, rather than a floaty 'concept proposal.'  It isn't traditional art world energy, it's more organisational, opportunistic and entrepreneurial, but it's impressive in its own way.

Petey Pate

Quote from: wosl on December 24, 2012, 12:00:55 AM
It's hard to knock Hirst from the point of view of effort.  Despite his flashy means, he's a highly motivated, highly organized doer, like the more traditional but also highly-motivated David Hockney.  He's always seen stuff through to completion.  Can't imagine him spazzing too many ideas away into the ether talking to his mates down the pub.  His mature work has always looked expensive to make, so from quite early on he must've had the 'ability' to risk in order to actually get things made.  I don't get much out of looking at his art, but I can appreciate that it took and takes a specific kind of manic, speculative, relentless sort of energy to make it a concrete fact in the world, rather than a floaty 'concept proposal.'  It isn't traditional art world energy, it's more organisational, opportunistic and entrepreneurial, but it's impressive in its own way.
Except that he has been known to hire people to do the laborious work in his art for him.  Maybe he isn't really the best example, but I was thinking of a posterboy for the kind of financially and critically successful fashion conscious artist that is the bane of those who actually bother to learn artistic principles (i.e. human anatomy, perspective, using different materials, e.t.c.). Incidentally, I was taught nothing like that at school, we were all more or less left to our own devices with no guidance. Somehow I managed to get an A* in the subject for A level, I guess due to the fact I was able to conceptualise whatever bullshit I painted with pretentious waffle. Are music students told to start off with free improvisation? It makes no sense to me why the discipline of art is taught in such an aimless "let your mind do what it wants maaaan" approach these days.

Kishi the Bad Lampshade

Amongst the sneery tone there were some kernels of good points in there, I thought. Nothing revolutionary - I imagine most people who don't get enough productive/creative/self-improving stuff done know that they aren't - but it's good to be reminded and if it's inspired a few people, then fine. Always nice to hear a takedown of Nice Guy Syndrome as well, even if it's an oversimplified one with a clumsy metaphor thrown in.

Deader Kata Mosser

Quote from: copyingdogs on December 23, 2012, 08:26:32 PM
    , I think this article is in some ways a special case in that it sort of implies that if you disagree with it at all, that is proof that you are in fact the exact person it is railing against. There is no room for disagreement with the core values of the article, which are set out as objective fact, when they are in reality only the prevailing set of values of a somewhat damaged and insane society. That's what gets me about this article. If you are personally offended with what you read, you're not only wrong, you're actively narcissistic, lazy and bitter, rather than just being someone who holds different ideals.

I haven't read the article, i'll give it a go in a bit, but having read a few Cracked things, that's just the 'in your face' style they employ for these type of articles, and as has been mentioned, a lot of that is to do with the fact that it generates debate and clicks and all that. It doesn't do reasonable and balanced so much. I think they do fine with the 'Ten Things About Movie Plots That Make No Sense' style stuff, much less so with lifestyle advice or anything that shows most of the writers are no better informed than your average blogger, and the jokes aren't as funny when you don't agree with their POV.

Still Not George

A hard truth:

Anyone who likes this article is a fuckwit.

If you disagree with me, that means you like this article, which means you are the fuckwit of which I speak.

HA! GET OUT OF THAT ONE LEFTIES!

Deader Kata Mosser

Had a quick look, and yup it's by David Wong, who has written some other articles I thought were shit. You may see if you agree with his '5 ways modern men have been trained since birth to hate women' which is both mostly a load a shit and has got 4 and half million views due to its title and content. So you see what Cracked/Wong are doing, and why on reflection I won't link to that dumb article I just mentioned.

biggytitbo


Deader Kata Mosser


biggytitbo

Whys Eddie looking so flushed? Whats he been up to?

Deader Kata Mosser

He is half-pleased and half-blushing at your 'wong' joke.

The Βoston Crab

Quote from: Still Not George on December 23, 2012, 05:16:02 PM
The unspoken and unspeakable secret of Western society is that we passed the point where 'workers' were necessary several decades ago. Automation makes it more so with each passing day.

This is actually a very well-worn perenially-unsubstantiated opinion.

Equally, there's plenty to take issue with in this article or with the basic points it raises - again, nothing revelatory - without inventing quotes to satisfy your prejudice against anyone who doesn't share your specific worldview.

Pick apart what's there, not what's in your head. Again, genuinely not trying to be a prick, I'm explaining why an argument against what you imagine the writer's/reader's intentions to be only tells us about you, not the writer/reader. That's in fact the greatest flaw of the piece, the guy tells us more about his own prejudices than he convinces with the thrust of the article.



biggytitbo

Quote from: The Βoston Crab on December 24, 2012, 08:41:27 AM
This is actually a very well-worn perenially-unsubstantiated opinion.
The real issue is globalisation brought 2.5 billion extra workers into the equation, devaluing the worth of our labour.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Nice Guy Syndrome is a less serious syndrome than whatever it is Mr. Wong suffers from. Given more than once he implies people can improve their chances by reading books about techniques and implies there is a set type all women will go for. Bear in mind for half the page his harsh life truths are entirely male-centric. Maybe this is through blind ignorance of his own chauvanism or he knows full well if he addressed women in that way people would find him to be a misogynistic psychopath.

He can only maintain his angry hectoring tone by targeting those who are already a hugely maligned group. Nice Guy Syndrome isnt exactly the ball-busting intellectual epiphany it was several years ago. As I keep suggesting, how would you allfeel reading an article targeting feckless, indecusive self-pitying women, of which there are just as many, also confused and lost when it comes to forming lasting male relationships? There'd be a fucking uproar.

hpmons

1. She likes you too
2. Your joke was pretty funny
3. It was a misunderstanding, he thinks you are cool anyway
4. You are good, someone else probably just got the job through nepotism
5. Consuming media is really good for creating
6. Your guitar skills are amazing

Danger Man

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 24, 2012, 09:22:20 AM
As I keep suggesting, how would you allfeel reading an article targeting feckless, indecusive self-pitying women, of which there are just as many, also confused and lost when it comes to forming lasting male relationships? There'd be a fucking uproar.

QuoteThe Rules is a way of dating that really works. Unlike other books and philosophies
that preach "do whatever you want" and "anything goes," The Rules offers a concrete set of do's and don'ts so you can actually land the guy of your dreams.

We began to notice that the women who played hard to get, either deliberately or by accident, were the ones who got the guys, while the women who asked guys out or were too available were the ones who got dumped. We put two and two together, and wrote and wrote, and that's how The Rules were born! We had no idea The Rules would become a bestseller... we just wanted to help women stop making mistakes and get the men of their dreams—and that's what we still do now, 20 years later! Today, Ellen is married with two children and lives in New York, and Sherrie is married with a teenage daughter and lives in New Jersey. We did The Rules, wrote The Rules, and have helped millions of women do The Rules, too. Now, we want to help you!

http://therulesbook.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rules

QuoteThe Rules: Time-tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right is a self-help book by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider, originally published in 1995.

The book suggests rules that a woman should follow in order to attract and marry the man of her dreams; these rules include that a woman should be "hard to get". The underlying philosophy of The Rules is that women should not aggressively pursue men, but rather ought to get the men to pursue them. A woman who follows The Rules is called a Rules Girl.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

I wonder what the psychology is behind the concerted targeting of predominantly harmless young men struggling to live up to society's expectations. The level of righteous indulgence in skewering a generalised group and the idea it stems from wider life failings is one that I don't recognise from my own experiences. I can understand there is misogyny there which needs to be challenged, which is fine, but people don't deserve to be trashed unless they are outright cunts.

I don't think it's all connected either. My brother's been out of any long relationship for 12 years and is understandably disjointed in his thinking, and it's got on top of him. However he is a model of self-made sparkly career success, a hard worker who makes things happen out of will and drive. Just can't get anything to start with a woman, even though he applies himself just as readily. If you get rejected enough times you will tie yourself in knots trying to work out why. People who don't get repeatedly rejected and don't go for years without any positive interaction with the opposite sex shouldnt claim they have a clue what people who have are going through.

Likewise I know a lot of acquaintance in settled relationships who are also great at talking to women who are lazy and going nowhere with their lifestyles or their jobs and aspirations.