People I hate (now with reasons)

Long Quan · Post by **Long Quan** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:33 pm

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on OSes... There are other alternatives, like Linux, Mac's OSX (or whatever it's called), etc. Nobody says you have to buy Windows... In fact, these days you can usually order a computer that comes with Linux instead of Windows (or get a Mac). Just because it's the most popular doesn't mean there aren't alternatives.

As far as Disney... Yeah, they alter stories and "kiddify" them, but that's because they're all about making films suitable for kids to watch... sheesh.

And Mew Guy... you're one paranoid Brit. If the US Army were enlisting criminals, it wouldn't just be Brittish and Canadian troops that got shot... The U.S. millitary actually LIKES to keep their soldiers under their thumb, which isn't going to happen if you're troops are all criminals.
(What makes you think that U.S. criminals have something against Brittain and Canada anyway?)

And the PETA... this is kind of unrelated to hating them, but I noticed something the other day. I saw some people in a big city protesting in front of a fur coat store, and it hit me: It seems like the people who are big into animal rights are usually in big cities, where the animals' habitat has already been wiped out, and they really have no interaction with wild animals, whereas in small towns out in the middle of say, Wyoming, rarely have any such protests, even though they have daily interaction (or at least more opportunity for it) with animals.

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:23 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="219302"][quote="TheDuke";p="219210"]
[quote="Mew Guy";p="218955"]Bill Gates - I don't think I have to explain.[/quote]

YES BECAUSE CREATING AN INEXPENSIVE AND STANDARDIZED OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS SIMPLE TO USE AND RUNS ON A WIDE VARIETY OF HARDWARE IS SO FUCKING EVIL IT MAKES ME SICK.[/quote]

Windows, uh... sucks, man. And the only reason it hasn't been replaced by a superior product is Microsoft uses its power to crush its opposition.[/quote]

If it sucks, then why hasn't the public at large realized it? Last time I checked, I was doing fucking fine with Windows XP home (The only time I ever have to reboot is when I install new software and shit, and that's hardly something that could make WinXP evil.), and am totally going to get Pro when I have the extra money.

As for Disney, they take classic stories, and mutilate/kiddify them (Hercules, anyone?)

OMG, YUO MAEN THAT DISNEY'S TARGIT AUDIANCE ISN'T 16 YEAR OLDS AND OLDER?! TAHT ITS KIDS UNDER TEN WOH DONT CARE IF TEH STORY HSA BEEN KIDDIFIDE?!?!?!?! OMGBSHAX!

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:47 pm

[quote="Long Quan";p="220042"]As far as Disney... Yeah, they alter stories and "kiddify" them, but that's because they're all about making films suitable for kids to watch... sheesh.[/quote]

Hm, my first response to that idea, is to say : "Fuck that." They don't need to be kiddified for the kids, they need to be kiddified for the adults, who don't want their kids to be exposed to the nonDisney view of the world. Which is what kids should be given.

My favorite example is Hercules. If a kid wants to read the story of Hercules, or be exposed to it, don't butcher it and rewrite it to sell peace of mind to the weak minds of their parents, but rather give the kids the originals.

A pity Zeus couldn't deliver a smiting to Disney for Hercules.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:49 pm

[quote="SothThe69th (emphasis mine)";p="220133"][quote="StruckingFuggle";p="219302"]
Windows, uh... sucks, man. And the only reason it hasn't been replaced by a superior product is Microsoft uses its power to crush its opposition.[/quote]
If it sucks, then why hasn't the public at large realized it? Last time I checked, I was doing fucking fine with Windows XP home (The only time I ever have to reboot is when I install new software and shit, and that's hardly something that could make WinXP evil.), and am totally going to get Pro when I have the extra money.
[/quote]

/me snorts... just snorts, lest the cynical remarks escape*

Eihger · Post by **Eihger** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:16 pm

Back in the day, they used to have more sugestive themes in childrens cartoon, so to expose it to them earlier. Which I think is a good idea

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:10 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="220165"][quote="SothThe69th (emphasis mine)";p="220133"][quote="StruckingFuggle";p="219302"]
Windows, uh... sucks, man. And the only reason it hasn't been replaced by a superior product is Microsoft uses its power to crush its opposition.[/quote]
If it sucks, then why hasn't the public at large realized it? Last time I checked, I was doing fucking fine with Windows XP home (The only time I ever have to reboot is when I install new software and shit, and that's hardly something that could make WinXP evil.), and am totally going to get Pro when I have the extra money.
[/quote]

/me snorts... just snorts, lest the cynical remarks escape*[/quote]

Yes yes, misanthropy, etc. etc. But, honestly, most people who say Windows sucks are either running it like fucktards (i.e. not keeping up on various updates.), or they're techno-literati who have 6 extra computers, each running a different version of linux, a mac, another computer running Windows ME (Techno-literati: "The only GOOD Windows."), and one final computer that can boot into all the above.

daemon princess · Post by **daemon princess** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:41 am

SothThe69th, unfortunately the business world does not work that way at all. Haven't you ever played Monopoly?

Part of the reason Starbuck's is so successful is because they had a strategy of opening up next to the local independentt coffeehouses and sold their coffee extremely cheap and offered free promotions because they could afford to run at a loss. They used the cheapest coffee but invested a great deal in advertising. Naturally, the people next store who have a much smaller profit margin (since they used quality coffee) in the first place, went out of business. Then Starbuck's was free to jack up their prices ridiculously. Now, most people haven't ever had a decent cup of coffee so they believe Starbuck's is good because they have signs everywhere that talk about their so-called "quality."

A friend of mine had a juice and sandwich bar that was failing miserably. She couldn't understand why the Jamba Juice on the next block was making way more sales than her when they used the cheapest stuff they could find and had higher prices. I told her that just having organic, fresh, high quality ingredients isn't enough. You have to tell people. So, she put signs all over the place going off about the quality, raised her prices dramatically and guess what? Sales went through the roof. She was one step away from bankruptcy and now she's highly successful and working on opening a second branch. Not because her quality improved, but because she told people it did.

Do you know that the $20 face creams at the department store have the exact same ingredients as the $4 ones at the drug store?

TheDuke · Post by **TheDuke** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:23 pm

[quote="Long Quan";p="220042"]As far as Disney... Yeah, they alter stories[/quote]

You mean they take advantage of the copyright laws, while using other stories, which have fallen into public domain, and then using their power and influence to push ahead copyright laws indefinitley so that they will never ever fall into Public Domain, while protecting THEIR interests so savagely that they will crush ANYBODY that stands in their path?

Yeah, I guess they *DO* "alter stories".

Miroku · Post by **Miroku** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:16 pm

Soth.. you forgot that those techno-literati usually also have some "vintage" computer, like the Commodore 64, that they insist is still in many ways far superior to anything else sitting in their computer room.

I think StruckingFuggle has a point with Disney cartoons being kiddiefied almost more for adults than for kids. I don't know how many of you saw Lilo & Stitch, but I thought it was a great movie. But many parents absolutely abhorred it. When I was at Disney World, I'd overhear conversations about it. These seemed to be the main complaints about it:

1) Stitch is mean and gross.

He hocks loogies toward the beginning, but it's nothing compared to what kids are seeing on most Saturday Morning cartoons, or stuff like Ed, Edd and Eddy. I mean.. hell.. the Timon & Puumba animated series is full of fart jokes. How is Stitch any worse? He's a genetically engineered alien designed to wreak havoc on major cities. I would think any such creature that finds himself stranded on a small Hawaiian island would be a bit testy when unable to fulfill his primary function.

2) Lilo comes from a broken home.

Lilo is being raised by her sister, Nani, after her parents were killed in a car crash. I've overheard parents bitching about Lilo coming from a "broken home." Let's see... Belle and Jasmine were being raised only by their fathers. Simba saw his father murdered before his eyes. Cinderella comes from an abusive household. I've never seen the Little Mermaid movie, but in what I've seen of the series, there's no mention of her mother, but Neptune has a ton of kids... almost seems like he might have a harem tucked away somewhere (as Jasmine's father may have had as well, given the setting). Where is Andy's father in the Toy Story movies????

Yes, by all means, let's single out Lilo & Stitch as setting a bad example for children. I mean.. it's not like Lilo's parents are seemingly divorced as the parents in some of the other Disney movies. No.. they had the gall to go off and get killed in a car crash, leaving her sister to raise her. That's definitely a blow gainst family values.

3) They "hear" that Lilo punches a girl in the face.

Gee... you mean after losing her parents in a car crash, Lilo shows signs of being somewhat ill-adjusted? Why, the nerve Disney has to suggest that life isn't rainbows and lollipops for a child that was left with only her sister! And if you haven't seen the scene, Lilo is not shown blatantly punching the girl. She tackles her and they get into a scuffle. Later, Lilo is apologizing to the girl and says "I'm sorry I kicked you... and pulled your hair.... and punched you in the face." Hearing that line coming out of a little child is just so absurd it's funny. Lilo is also a very... imaginitive child.... with ideas like she has to feed a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to a fish on Tuesdays because the fish controls the weather. She makes up rather odd stories about her doll. In all... I found Lilo to be the most honest depiction of a child in almost any Disney movie ever made.

But then... Disney movies shouldn't show how people are in real life. They should show us life where every little girl is a perfect doll and grows up to be a princess.

<BAAAAAARRRRFFFF>

If you look at the kind of stuff they're marketing, you can see where Disney's demographic has sort of shifted to.... the soccer moms. If you go into a Disney store, you mostly see three things... Toy Story, Winnie the Pooh, and the "Disney Princess" collection, which focuses mainly on Ariel, Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty. Occasionally, they throw in Jasmine. Note it's the princess collection.. not the "Disney heroine collection" or somesuch. So gals like Pocahontos and Mulan are sort of tucked under the rug. It's a little interesting that all but one of their more "ethnic" female characters are excluded.

The soccer moms eat this crap up. Most of the store is dedicated to two groups... soccer-mom collectors, and little girls. There's a few odds and ends that might interest young boys, but it makes up maybe 1/5 of the entire stock of your average Disney Store. So, though the soccer moms don't make up ALL of Disney's market, they probably constitute a large portion of their merchandising market... and since that's where the real money is made for them, they're gonna cater to that section of their market the most, which can set the tone for their movies.

It's unfortunate, too, because that means Disney doesn't have the leeway to be experimental with their movies like they have done with some. Apparently, many people did not like the background in Lilo & Stitch, which were rendered in watercolor and mildly impressionistic, rather than the crisp, clean backgrounds Disney fans are used to. Personally, I thought they were wonderful.. making the movie that much more like a work of art than a mere cartoon. But, the Disneygoing public doesn't want artful or experimental. They demand the same, tired, manufactured stuff and recycled stories that comprise their hallmark movies.

Eihger · Post by **Eihger** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:17 pm

soccer moms are the one that shelter their kids too much. The thing about over sheltering is, the kids will almost never succed in life

TheDuke · Post by **TheDuke** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:45 pm

that's why you need to beat your kids and let them do drugs

daemon princess · Post by **daemon princess** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:52 pm

Actually, I think, as Miroku demonstrated, Disney is getting a lot better at not kiddefying. In fact, they're going as far as they can without making parents go berserk. Even that line they are slowly pushing. Lilo was clearly depressed and even showed signs of being suicidal. I could mention Mulan's famous line: "I never want to see a naked man again." Mulan also introduced issues of war and discrimination in as realistic a way that young children could understand. Most kids are usually shielded from those kinds of concepts.

I strongly support Disney. While they are more simplified, unrealistic and "kiddefied" than the ideal, they do make an excellent job of introducing different cultures, ideas and values to kids. How many kids are going to get that kind of education anywhere else? An extremely scant few.

Sir Spankspeople · Post by **Sir Spankspeople** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:40 am

They just need to get a restraining order keeping Phil Collins from doing any more music for them. Nearly ruined the rather enjoyable Brother Bear he did. Luckily it wasn't terribly memorable music, so I don't even remember why it bothered me anyways. =P

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:24 am

I have a book of tales by the Brothers Grimm. I will raise my children on those.

daemon princess · Post by **daemon princess** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:34 am

I don't know. Some of the Brothers Grimm is a little bit disturbing.

But Hans Christian Anderson! The real versions, of course. I used to adore his stories when I was little. I don't understand at all why anyone would want to "protect" their children from any literature that's not always sunshine and lollipops.

Real Life Forums

People I hate (now with reasons)

Re: People I hate (now with reasons)

Re: People I hate (now with reasons)

Re: People I hate (now with reasons)

Who is online