• Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be
    5,009 replies, posted
Queen (the band) is overrated
Crash Course "History" is bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of actual research, and is hilariously biased. John Green does little to present the information objectively, and regularly attempts to whitewash the successes/failures of certain peoples in order to create some false narrative. The fact that schools use him as a replacement for teaching is depressing. Also, his books [I]suck [B]ass[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50901501]Crash Course "History" is bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of actual research, and is hilariously biased. John Green does little to present the information objectively, and regularly attempts to whitewash the successes/failures of certain peoples in order to create some false narrative. The fact that schools use him as a replacement for teaching is depressing. Also, his books [I]suck [B]ass[/B][/I][/QUOTE] I'm interested, do you have any examples?
[QUOTE=RB33;50901738]I'm interested, do you have any examples?[/QUOTE] First one off the top of my head is whenever he mentions the Crusades. He always depicts them as brain-dead, murderous, meandering oafs, while he immediately turns around to give fanboy-like praise to the Mongols.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50901771]First one off the top of my head is whenever he mentions the Crusades. He always depicts them as brain-dead, murderous, meandering oafs, while he immediately turns around to give fanboy-like praise to the Mongols.[/QUOTE] That would be part of the comedy-aspect of it. He isn't serious all the time.
Godzilla 1998 isn't that bad
[QUOTE=RB33;50901808]That would be part of the comedy-aspect of it. He isn't serious all the time.[/QUOTE] Then he shouldn't act like he's giving an accurate account of history.
[QUOTE=Velocihater;50901916]Godzilla 1998 isn't that bad[/QUOTE] It suffers from being a really awful attempt at being a Godzilla movie, and just being a bad movie in general. - Poor soundtrack - A majority of the cast is comic-relief - Too tongue in cheek with flips to overbearing dark tones (something that ID4 had problems with) - Bad interpretation of Godzilla - Bizarre backstory (Blame somebody else for the nuclear tests???) However, it does have some pretty great shots of Zilla as he's making his way through the city, especially with the second fish-trap. There was much more done to give the creature a sense of scale, something not done since Gojira (1954) until GMK (2001)
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50901501]Crash Course "History" is bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of actual research, and is hilariously biased. John Green does little to present the information objectively, and regularly attempts to whitewash the successes/failures of certain peoples in order to create some false narrative. The fact that schools use him as a replacement for teaching is depressing. Also, his books [I]suck [B]ass[/B][/I][/QUOTE] you're not wrong but i will say that the stuff he teaches is an accurate reflection of Americas Advanced Placement curriculum, i got a 5 on three of my four exams partially because of him
[QUOTE=megafat;50898456]Vaping like most things isn't the problem, it's people not shutting the fuck up about it is. That goes for the backlash of most things too.[/QUOTE] yeah, i know. it just sucks that people like that ruin it for the rest of us.
DarkRP is quite enjoyable
[QUOTE=RB33;50901808]That would be part of the comedy-aspect of it. He isn't serious all the time.[/QUOTE] That's fine but it starts to get shitty when it gets in the way of historical accuracy and neutrality
a neutral account of history is practically impossible (and not even that useful) and a culturally-flavored version is totally fine so long as you've got some context
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50902589]a neutral account of history is practically impossible (and not even that useful) and a culturally-flavored version is totally fine so long as you've got some context[/QUOTE] I disagree, being neutral (as in, stating the facts and events in all their glory and shame without a bias) helps people get a good idea of historical events. It'll only be confusing of the person who'd explaining them is bad at explaining them.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;50902814]I disagree, being neutral (as in, stating the facts and events in all their glory and shame without a bias) helps people get a good idea of historical events. It'll only be confusing of the person who'd explaining them is bad at explaining them.[/QUOTE] a list of events as they happened doesn't really help a person learn anything from history, though. the most important part of history is being able to empathize with people from other time periods and cultures, but even something as benign (and apparently true) as "the treaty of versailles was a strong factor in the cause of WW2 because it caused widespread poverty in Germany" casts one side as a victim and writes a subtextual narrative that isn't necessarily reality you'd learn the most from talking to an actual person from interwar-era Germany, even though that would be [i]the[/i] most biased story possible
[QUOTE=Arbys Watcher;50902096]DarkRP is quite enjoyable[/QUOTE] i like making 13 year olds suffer
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50903405]a list of events as they happened doesn't really help a person learn anything from history, though. the most important part of history is being able to empathize with people from other time periods and cultures, but even something as benign (and apparently true) as "the treaty of versailles was a strong factor in the cause of WW2 because it caused widespread poverty in Germany" casts one side as a victim and writes a subtextual narrative that isn't necessarily reality you'd learn the most from talking to an actual person from interwar-era Germany, even though that would be [i]the[/i] most biased story possible[/QUOTE] personally i think it's better to teach an unbiased view first, and bring up different narratives later. the problem isn't teaching biased views, it's showing them as if they weren't biased
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50903523]personally i think it's better to teach an unbiased view first, and bring up different narratives later. the problem isn't teaching biased views, it's showing them as if they weren't biased[/QUOTE] but what good does an unbiased view do for a student? it tells people that things happened, but it doesn't go into why they happened - I could tell you that Alexander the Great conquered much of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, but I have no idea why, and I don't know how that really connects to anything else because I was never required to identify with him or his culture, and that makes the knowledge I have totally meaningless. plus, unbiased views are usually pretty boring, which makes learning slow and painful. A passionate first-person account, whether real or from a fictional work, can inspire an interest that causes a student to investigate on their own and challenge their own upbringing, which I'd say is a better lifelong skill than knowing the mechanical details of an event. The reason there are so many amateur WW2 historians is exactly because of how much work has been done to turn it into a cultural story, through film, literature, and media.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50903638]but what good does an unbiased view do for a student? it tells people that things happened, but it doesn't go into why they happened - I could tell you that Alexander the Great conquered much of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, but I have no idea why, and I don't know how that really connects to anything else because I was never required to identify with him or his culture, and that makes the knowledge I have totally meaningless. plus, unbiased views are usually pretty boring, which makes learning slow and painful. A passionate first-person account, whether real or from a fictional work, can inspire an interest that causes a student to investigate on their own and challenge their own upbringing, which I'd say is a better lifelong skill than knowing the mechanical details of an event. The reason there are so many amateur WW2 historians is exactly because of how much work has been done to turn it into a cultural story, through film, literature, and media.[/QUOTE] i did say there's nothing wrong with teaching biased views as long as you make the bias clear, so i'm not sure what the point of this post is but since we're on about empathy, i find it hard to empathize with you and your argument considering the points you've made in the past about mixing comedy and news [editline]17th August 2016[/editline] sorry this post sounds more confrontational than i meant it to be
I think the prototype versions of Resident Evil 4 would have been better than the final game, mainly the Hookman version. Granted, I like RE4, but most of the prototypes had more of a horror focus. The series probably wouldn't have gone down the disgusting path it did if 4 was a bit slower and less of an action shooter. You can definitely tell the movies had a bad influence on the main series.
I think we're being a little too quick to judge Metal Gear Survive. As much as I love to hate MGS3 Panchiko, we haven't even seen any gameplay footage of the new game, and depending on the context, a survival game could actually work with Metal Gear's stealth.
That's not all there is to it, there's people spending hours going on tirades about how konami is hitler and how shit this looks and ur dumb if you like it etc People can be skeptical but they don't have to shit on people who aren't
I think it was in SH where I saw this one guy reply to someone who said they think it looks good like "what are ya fukkin crazy" type stuff then kept posting for pages about it
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50905173]It pays to be a skeptical asshole when it comes to video games.[/QUOTE] Just keep that shit away from Final Fantasy fans, those fuckers'll eat you alive. On the other hand, sometimes it just makes you look obnoxious. Remember all the pre-release criticism of Doom 4? People bitched and moaned about how "slow" it was, ignoring any logical reasoning (like E3 stage demos always being controlled by devs who have a hard-on for slowly panning the camera and showing off environments), and sticking by their opinions even after they've been invalidated. A lot of those people still stick by those opinions and act like id actually read their online shit fits and "fixed" the game.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50905173]It pays to be a skeptical asshole when it comes to video games. It has absolutely no downsides. You're right, you save 60 bucks. You're wrong, you can make an informed post-release decision on whether you want to buy the game or not.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/zeropunctuation/images/0/0e/E3_2_1.png/revision/latest?cb=20100520165740[/IMG] This is actual good life advice
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;50905173]It pays to be a skeptical asshole when it comes to video games. [/QUOTE] Being a bitter and hateful jerk about a lot of things relating to gaming seems to pay off if my personal experience tells me anything.
i think it's fucking dumb whenever someone does a terrible/morally depraved thing in the news, people almost immediately jump to the conclusion that they're a sociopath/psychopath. bonus points if they're not just suspicious but convinced by their bullshit armchair psychology. i mean, sure, it's [I]possible[/I], but the fact that they usually don't consider anything else, like maybe narcissistic/borderline personality disorder, or maybe they're a violent schizo, drives me up a wall.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;50905981]i think it's fucking dumb whenever someone does a terrible/morally depraved thing in the news, people almost immediately jump to the conclusion that they're a sociopath/psychopath. bonus points if they're not just suspicious but convinced by their bullshit armchair psychology. i mean, sure, it's [I]possible[/I], but the fact that they usually don't consider anything else, like maybe narcissistic/borderline personality disorder, or maybe they're a violent schizo, drives me up a wall.[/QUOTE] Psychopathy is characterized by remorselessness, egotism, and a lack of empathy. It's not a stretch to assume that the average mass murderer is a psychopath, especially when they have pages and pages of diary entries that all fit the bill, which they usually seem to do.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;50906000]Psychopathy is characterized by remorselessness, egotism, and a lack of empathy. It's not a stretch to assume that the average mass murderer is a psychopath, especially when they have pages and pages of diary entries that all fit the bill, which they usually seem to do.[/QUOTE] like i said, it's not impossible, but usually, another reason can be found outside of "they're a sociopath/psychopath." also, ignoring the fact that both disorders are not only extremely rare (only an estimated 1% of the human population has them), and that the majority of people who [I]do[/I] have them (or at least, psychopathy) lead fairly normal, crime-free lives, there's also the fact that people who make these claims never knew these people, let alone had a chance to thoroughly study what exactly was going on in their head. you'd think that their actions would be enough to make a conclusion but it simply [I]doesn't work that way.[/I]
[QUOTE=Rudevinny;50907174]I think pitbulls are ugly[/QUOTE] I'm not sure why some people prefer them so much to other dogs. A lot of people claim they're "the friendliest dogs ever" but the ones I've met have been pretty typical. :v: It frustrates me when people breed them. You get that a lot in my area where people are just making a fuckton of pit bulls most of which end up crowding the animal shelters. Seriously there was a local report lately saying that 3 out of 4 dogs in our county's shelters are pit bulls. In the shelters they're spayed or neutered and then rarely adopted because people want to be able to breed them, so ultimately they're euthanized. If you want a pit bull, or any dog for that matter, you should adopt one from the shelter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.