Ramblings of a Mad Man (What's Wrong with the World?)

Fladian

New Member
Part 3 – Depressing Moments[/b]
Ooohhh...

Why must a girl always think she is inferior? I have noticed that most girls (besides the over confident popular ones) actually lack a LOT of self-confidence. Where does that come from? [/b]
Actually, it's the coincidence that I heard it recently, according to the news, the insecurity, or inferiority, if you prefer, has been increasing in high numbers recently by men as well. Edwin (radio dj, red.) had a nice laugh about it, but didn't deny that it would be false. If you'd pay a little attention to it - and look back to how it used to be - you could say that everything does point to that, yes.

Therefore, the statement you gave isn't completely true.

Well, I have one theory. And that is the fact that for years they have been treated as if they were lower than men. Men got all of the privileges and women got stuck at home caring for the kids, cleaning and cooking. It might just be that the long history of mistreating women has finally got to every single one of them, save a few who are trying to break that trend.[/b]
Nonsense. A similar (backside) question could be asked to men instead. Why do they feel superior? Why do people (still) find it remarkable when the woman is taller than the man? Why does the man still have the image of being 'stronger'? The question can be turned in every way. The theory you gave is far from right. Ironically that someone like me is defending that though. :p

Speaking of lack of confidence, why must adults treat teenagers as if they are all the same, even though they practically drill it into us to act like young men and women? [/b]
Protection. That protection isn't available at younger ages and slowly growns while the person is unaware of it, what might annoy the... uh... child. The Dutch artist, Guus Meeuwis, mentioned something similar in a song named 'schilderij' (painting). I'll quote that:

<div align="center">A lot has happened this year
something and someone has colored pieces of my life
Life is sometimes just like a painting
as example, I'll give the painting of my own

I don't know who makes the first sketch
Your parents, coincidence or faith
or Him, because his parents had a donkey
in other words; the right hand of God
But your parents are the first who start painting
Careful red and later yellow and green
because, when you are a student
you, unfortunately, want to do more and more by yourself

Life is sometimes just like a painting
and time slowly gives it more color

And then others start to get them involved
Your friends, they mix themselves in the cafe
Everything through each other, it's a mess
but the most beautiful of all is what you take with you
And the women who leave their pranks
too much of it, and too much blues too
They are now air, but that has been different once
A sea of tears, and no horizon in sight

Guus_Meeuwis_jpg_949381b.jpg

Guus Meeuwis
[/b][/quote]

If you understand why I translated that piece of the song (I skipped the last part, as it is of no importance), you also have an answer to what I said. =)

Even after all of that, they still view us as all the same, “those rotten teenagers and their attitudes”. Do they not realize that teenagers are individuals too? Do teenagers not deserve the “benefit of the doubt” or the “innocent until proven guilty”? Why can adults not take the time to see if the teenager really has an attitude or the like before passing some stereotypical judgment? That is question I don’t have the answer to.[/b]
Because time changes? At the school I attend to right now, there's a picture of my father when he was still a student (40 years ago is my wild guess). I didn't believe him at first when he pointed at the public photo that is at school, but I had to believe it when he showed a nearly similar picture when we were home again. Pretty funny, actually. He still had hair on that photo. :p More than I ever had for that matter. :p

Regardless, it is no big secret that puberty also brings rebelious behavior. Or at least, makes them act unproperly, which is the main part that is hated by adults, and understandable because it has resulted in mutliple problems.
Also, why would they need to accept someone immediately? I am pretty satisfied with how it goes. But that probably is related to the fact that I'm supposed to be an 'adult' too. :p

Finally, along the lines of not taking the time to avoid stereotypes, what about salespeople? [/b]
Now you are just plain referring to me, right? :p (considering that I studied trade, administration and (currently) laws. They are not necessarily related to each other)

Normally a salesperson is looked upon as someone who is just trying to sell you something and doesn’t care if you use his or her product at all. But guess what? That’s their job. And I personally know some salespeople, and some of them are only trying to help you. Now, yes, the consumer has to be aware of where to draw the line, where helping ends and selling begins. But that’s being an informed consumer. And everyone should be an informed consumer.[/b]
I uh... didn't really get the point of this section. But I nearly failed 'trade' class (officially the hardest class I've ever had, that and 'costing price')

There. That's one. Three more threads to read. :p
 
Werbung:

Undead_Lives

New Member
I got a comment :O
I'm quite surprised that on most of it you disagreed with me. However the teenager part I understand, the girls I'm a little confused about, but the fact that you didn't get the salespeople part makes me go o_O
Personally almost every girl I've ever met has low self esteem. It's like in their blood. The reason for it, I'm not entirely sure. But I do know that self confidence is lacking.
Now maybe the real truth is that both males and females lack confidence, but the males hide it. That poses the question, why don't females hide it? Or why must males hide it?
There is an endless amount of questions. Sigh, I really hope I don't become a psychologist :p
 

Fladian

New Member
I'm a little confused about, but the fact that you didn't get the salespeople part makes me go o_O[/b]
I studied trade, Undead. But what you gave for information about salespeople is something that is (as far as I know) generally known. It didn't really give any additional information, nor any question, in opposite of all other sections, therefore it not being on its place.

Personally almost every girl I've ever met has low self esteem. It's like in their blood. The reason for it, I'm not entirely sure. But I do know that self confidence is lacking.[/b]
Some of those I know, yes, but that disappears mostly when they get older, but that counts for everyone. I hang out with people around the age of 19 - 23 (two being exceptions, one of them being 16 and the other 28).

Now maybe the real truth is that both males and females lack confidence, but the males hide it. That poses the question, why don't females hide it? Or why must males hide it?[/b]
They don't necessarily hide it, it is just mostly ignored. How many guys I could name that lack confidence to do some stuff. If you look around my area, you'll see only minor differences between each other - shyness (almost) always gets less when you get older, as confidence increases. I'm a little stopped because I hang out with very spontanous girls, but also my (and the people around me) age is bothering me now.

There is an endless amount of questions. Sigh, I really hope I don't become a psychologist :p
[/b]
True, perhaps it would be better in the debate section than here.
 

Undead_Lives

New Member
Technically it's writing, so I'd like it to stay here.
As for your salesperson point, I guess you are right, it didn't exactly belong.
And as for growing up and getting more confidence, well of course that's true. But since my other section was about teenagers, "girls" refers to female teenagers, most of which lack confidence.
 

Fladian

New Member
It is writing, true, but the talk about it would be better fit in the debate section. That was what I was referring to. ^^

I still stand at the point what I earlier said. The girls I hang out with currently are not lacking confidence and those I used to know... well, most of them were a bit 'closed' (which I do not believe was related to low confidence), but I only knew two who were really lacking self confidence. One of them admitted it was because she was afraid of rumors (in the end, I never really understood her logic) and the other one... well, I'm not sure what her problem was. I talked with her once in three years of time. She striked me as a nice girl, but a reason why she lacked confidence is beyond me. I think she was just being shy... just like I was.
 

Fladian

New Member
True, (I wouldn't say it that way to them though :p there is one person I'd call a 'woman,' as she's 8 years older than me and still a classmate) but back in high school, I didn't notice much of what you said either... regarding the people I uh... knew. (hanged out with is hard to say, as I didn't really hang out with them)
Friendly suggestion: Never call people "older women," unless they are starting to turn grey. Many take it offensive, unless you are able to joke it off - like I do, quite a lot, mind you.

"I'm 22." - a (girl)friend
"22?! And then they call me old." - Me

"Did you hear how old some of them were? 16, 17. I feel old." - a (girl)friend
"How do you think I feel? I'm a year older than you." - Me

"I don't want to get in a class with all kind of kids... I want people of my age." - a friend
"Um... you're 24, man."

The more I think of it, the less examples I can think of. With an exception of the two I mentioned earlier, I can't think of any other. Others were either spontanous or had other ways to get them selves in the spotlight - and one of them was violent; a head shorter than me (when I was still VERY short) but loved to kick people.
 

Fladian

New Member
Yes, I'm indeed close to those ages. As for people I hang out with (especially as of late), they are usually older than me... only a bit, mostly, but still. One of them (28), being a dire exception. That I hang out with those older than me is only coincidental - we knew each other from somewhere else, and we are united again, creating a (small) friendship. Despite (from that group) that all of them are quite spontanous now (especially Elianne), I have a hard time imaging them to be something else. When I asked some of them if they always have been like this (a question I asked a long time ago), I gained a positive answer from them all. (or the ironic: "No, why? Did I change?")

As for my high school, no, I certainly didn't hang out with confident girls *reminds himself of Tamara who liked to kick people* Okay, only a few. My association with girls at high school isn't any different from the next person. Despite that some are a bit "shy," it's hard to say they were more insecure than some of the guys - like myself, or especially myself - but again, that would be a bit akward. My last two years of high school had only a few girls though, but those I hanged out with were never classmates (though I sure would have loved that :p).

"Wolf! Stop that!"
*kicks Wolf*
"Agh! No, you stop kicking me, damn it!"
 

Undead_Lives

New Member
Well, I haven't written anything here for a while, and I've been meaning to so......here I go again.
Before I do however, I'd like to mention that I've changed the name to "Ramblings of a Mad Man (What's Wrong with the World?)". The portion in parentheses will make it so people actually know what this topic is about :p
Now, on with the next portion.

Criticizing the Critics

Here on our great forum, we have a rule, don't just criticize, give constructive criticizm. Now I'm asking, why don't these so called "professional" critics do the same?

Honestly, I've seen more of "this is crap" kind of thing than "this was bad, and here's why, and here's what could've been done to make it better". Actually, I don't think I've ever seen the latter. Now, as for reasons to this, I could guess that they have the excuse of their editor making them write over exagerations to sell whatever they are selling. But what ever happened to freedom of speech? I bet the editor would say something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want, but how you say it, that's up to me."

Another reason is possibly that the people involved in whatever was being criticized got upset at the slightest thing, even with constructive criticizm (a topic for another time). They possibly got fed up and decided to go all out, and screw the people getting upset. But honestly, does that solve anything?

Now, I'm going to provide two examples of critics being well, idiots. The first is an album critic. Now, the band he/she was criticizing, has brilliant music, great vocals, great everything, except for one thing. According to this critic, the band's lyrics weren't deep enough. They weren't "influential" enough. And that was ALL he/she complained about. The rating that the person gave? 4/5. What the hell is up with that crap? Honestly, you're rating a BAND that plays MUSIC not some friggen essay that's supposed to move people to believe in Global Warming. For bloody sake, if you feel the lyrics were that bad, then MAYBE 4.5/5 would be in order, but the lyrics are only ONE part of the entire album. And who gives a crap about whether or not the lyrics' topics were good or not? They were still well written, and hell the music was awesome.

The next example is Pirates of the Carribean 2. Now, this show was (from a local newpaper) rated in the top ten WORST list. How did that come to pass? Here's the basic reasons. One, it was too long. Boo friggidy who. Two, it was a dissapointment. No argument there, the first was definitely better. But if this had been the first movie, you would've thought it was pretty good, but not great, which it is. Now I know that you MUST rate it as a sequel, but making it one of the top ten worst? That sounds like you just put it there to sell papers. And that's a load of bull****.

In conclusion, if these critics want to show just how valuable their opinions really are, they better well damn give some constructive criticizm. Any idiot can say "that movie sucked cause it was too long", but to point out what could've made it better, that takes at least some intelligence. And hell, if we can't read something intelligent in the newspaper, where can we?
 

Fladian

New Member
Here on our great forum, we have a rule, don't just criticize, give constructive criticizm. Now I'm asking, why don't these so called "professional" critics do the same?
Hmm... that's what I call coincidence. A somewhat similar subject was on tv out here yesterday in the form a movie. The movie was based on a famous English theater-play. Not bad movie too, I must admit.
As for that rule; that rule exists practically everywhere when someone takes each other at least a bit serious.

Honestly, I've seen more of "this is crap" kind of thing than "this was bad, and here's why, and here's what could've been done to make it better". Actually, I don't think I've ever seen the latter. Now, as for reasons to this,
There could be numerous of reasons for this; one of them you already mentioned. But instead of looking away from the author himself, try to look at him (or her) for a change. Much success often brings (sometimes unintentional) arrogance. I am convinced that I have to give no examples of that here, as there are more than enough to name if you just look outside your window... as a matter of speaking, of course. I mean, I don't live in a city where many celebrities live... I think just one, come to think of it...

I could guess that they have the excuse of their editor making them write over exagerations to sell whatever they are selling. But what ever happened to freedom of speech? I bet the editor would say something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want, but how you say it, that's up to me."
Protection, mostly. The media tends to twist and bend words as much as they possibly can. The first example that comes to mind happens to be about football/soccer, Ruud van Nistelrooy. He has always been a good player for his (now former) English team, Manchester United. However, last year he got in a small fight with his coach/manager (which still isn't completely cleared up) and lost his first team place. As a matter of fact, despite that v. Nistelrooy is one of the best players of Europe, if not the world, he wasn't even played once. The media swamped both him and his coach/manager. Much later (not too long ago from this time) was explained that both gave no explanation in order to protect each other. Despite that they nowadays hold quite the grudge against each other, they still respect each other as the person as they are. (note: This is NOT the exact story of what happend with Ruud van Nistelrooy)

Now, I'm going to provide two examples of critics being well, idiots. The first is an album critic. Now, the band he/she was criticizing, has brilliant music, great vocals, great everything, except for one thing. According to this critic, the band's lyrics weren't deep enough. They weren't "influential" enough. And that was ALL he/she complained about. The rating that the person gave? 4/5. What the hell is up with that crap? Honestly, you're rating a BAND that plays MUSIC not some friggen essay that's supposed to move people to believe in Global Warming.
Perhaps I can shed some light on this. Lyrics are becoming extremely important in numerous of styles of music; especially when asked to someone who seems to have a thing for it as well, which is probably the case in what you are referring to.
Um... two years ago, a band got quite successful out here with a single song. If you can honestly call it a song, as it is in my book as one of the most annoying songs of all times. When the title is roughly translated to English, you'd get something like: "Watz happuning!" The song itself (the music) wasn't bad (well, it was, but that's my opinion) but the lyrics were next to horrible. Of course there are good examples too, take the Bloodhound Gang as example. They take nothing serious in their lyrics, but that is probably the good thing about them - I like them once in a while, but that's just about it.
Another example (and the last I would give) is the song itself. If the song is aiming on a certain audience, by making a slow (and if necessary, emotional) song, the lyrics are probably far more important than the song itself. Just yesterday, my mother was nearly crying in front of the TV because she heard a song of the Belgian band, Clouseau 'Laat me nu toch niet alleen' (Don't leave me alone) which isn't such a great song itself, but the lyrics are quite emotional. The song itself has no meaning for me - it doesn't 'touch' me - but certainly does for her, which I can understand because of what she has been going through quite recently.

The next example is Pirates of the Carribean 2. Now, this show was (from a local newpaper) rated in the top ten WORST list. How did that come to pass?
Really? I haven't seen it yet.

Here's the basic reasons. One, it was too long. Boo friggidy who. Two, it was a dissapointment. No argument there, the first was definitely better. But if this had been the first movie, you would've thought it was pretty good, but not great, which it is.
It is generally known that when the first movie (or the first part of something) is extremely successful, it is even harder to succeed that success. I'll be as free to give two examples here.
I am a loyal listener of the Dutch Top 40 since two or three years. Even though I must admit, since Mr Wessel van Diepen retired, I haven't been so loyal. Anyway, two (and a half) year ago, Dutch singer, Guus Meeuwis scored a giant hit that destroyed every Dutch record out here and got in the book of 'best hits of all times' top 10 - 10th place. He was in the Top 40 for about half a year, if not longer. When the song finally left the Top 40, another song got in (De Weg / The Road), but how in the world are you able to succeed the success of his other song? That's practically impossible, no matter how you look at it. I am personally of the opinion that De Weg is a good song, as a matter of fact, it is one of my favorite songs of all times, but the general audience will immediately compare it with his previous and extremely successful song, which they shouldn't have. But by all means, De Weg was still somewhat successful, by scoring a Top 3 hit.
Another example is something everyone will know: Pokemon. To be honest, I was quite fond of Pokemon before it became a hype in its first season. And I still keep admitting it, I really liked it too - for as long as it lasted. The second season was clearly less good (but still acceptable) but every season after that one was... pardon me, but they were crap. They kept driving on a single success of one thing.

Now I know that you MUST rate it as a sequel, but making it one of the top ten worst? That sounds like you just put it there to sell papers. And that's a load of bull****.
They know the potential, but it was never used.

In conclusion, if these critics want to show just how valuable their opinions really are, they better well damn give some constructive criticizm. Any idiot can say "that movie sucked cause it was too long", but to point out what could've made it better, that takes at least some intelligence. And hell, if we can't read something intelligent in the newspaper, where can we?
It's media. Media doesn't have to give a proper explanation. What they show, people will believe. And I honestly believe you are using the same sources as me when it comes to news, as another coincidental news flash just shot through my mind which I read a few days ago. Radiofreak.nl recently showed a poll of what kind of media was believed the most by people of 13 'till their 29th - I'm in that area too.
I roughly translated the news report, but skipped everything which is not of importance - including what radio station, what tv station, what newspaper etc. is the most reliable and stuff.
85.5 percent of the youngsters says to have faith in the media. The newspaper scores the highest with 88.8 percent. Radio is doing quite well with a second place. 85.4 percent says to have faith in the media. Television scores 79.4 percent; Internet 69.7 percent. The research is done by research-company, De Vos & Jansen (never heard of, sorry).

Newsreader Philip Freriks (the 'image' person of the 8 o' clock news) is according to 67.8 percent the most reliable person when it comes to information. Of the youngsters, 34.2 percent calls the television the most important source of information. Internet and newspapers shares a second place with 21.3 percent.

The newssite of the NOS (uh... the main news site in the Netherlands, you could compare it with CNN in the US) is being called the most reliable by the youngsters. 65.4 percent of the researched people mentioned this.

EDIT: What might be worth mentioning is that that research named a certain 'rumor' site the least reliable. The next day after that was published, that 'rumor' site claimed that the researcher of that research passed away in a car accident. (of course this is not true)
 

Undead_Lives

New Member
I guess in both of my examples, the thing I was really upset with was the fact that their rating system was terrible. I felt that their reasons and their ratings did not match each other.
And as for lyrics, how would you rate instrumental music? Has no lyrics, minus 1 star? Of course not. Lyrics can convey important messages true, but music is still music.
 

Fladian

New Member
And as for lyrics, how would you rate instrumental music? Has no lyrics, minus 1 star? Of course not. Lyrics can convey important messages true, but music is still music.
Of course they wouldn't get a penalty of ratings. Take DJ Tiesto's music, he rarely uses lyrics yet he is among world's greatest - to just name someone. But especially several styles of music make great use of lyrics. Didn't I mention some before? (I didn't notice I didn't reply to this post yet, I really thought I did)

Besides that all, you didn't mention anything about it being instrumental music only.
 
Werbung:

Undead_Lives

New Member
No, it wasn't instrumental music that was rated, but my point was that you can rate Bethoven lower because none of his songs have lyrics (unless you include opera... *shivers*). The most important thing is the MUSIC, which was great. I disagree for the -1 star out of 5.
 
Top