The Big Picture: In Defense of Nostalgia

[Sperium 3000]

CoD is still ultimately bringing more new stuff to the Table then a new Mario is..

Yeah, because from Mario in 2D to 3D to FLUDD to Space travel it's all basically the same thing, while in CoD you get to shoot different people! Sometimes. Oh! There -was- that zombie minigame, oh wait, everyone's doing zombie games nowadays. Hmm.... Wait, wait, no, we can make this work! CoD is getting consistently browner? Wait, no... Did I mention the zombies?

 

[Mister Linton]

I don't believe going into politics was inevitable Bob. You just wanted to throw some of your liberal views out there and thats okay. We now understand that you believe there is NO SUCH THING AS BAD CHANGE.

I do however take umbrige with your insistence that Nintendo's repetitious properties are somehow "better" than other stale games in genres you don't like.

 

[UNHchabo]

But Bob, "The Change-up" isn't even an original idea that bases itself in gross-out male comedy; it's a rehash of "Freaky Friday" that bases itself in gross-out male comedy.

 

[Aurini]

Just a few comments on where the left has got us:

The Welfare State has destroyed the black underclass, by offering welfare benefits to single moms, driving men out of the households. The result is a criminal underclass, where young boys are without father figures, and grow up to engage in violence like women, but with men's strength (rap and ghetto culture).

Social progressivism has led to ever-increasing budgets for entitlements, leading the government to bankruptcy and insolvency.

Nanny-state laws over-regulate small businesses, so that only the huge corporate concerns can afford the lawyers needed to navigate the labyrinthine regulations.

The producers and makers (typically 'evil' white males) are demonized, while the unproductive moochers are pedastalized.

No Fault Divorce destroyed marriage, leading to greater unhappiness, even amongst those who stay married, than 'oppressed' women from the 1950s.

That said, none of this is going to stop any time soon - the US is like a car racing down a mountain, the Dems are pushing on the gas pedal, while the Reps are pushing on the breaks - but nobody's putting things in reverse. Year by year, the big government machine gets bigger, more unwieldly, under the control of Civil Service who are unelected, and unnaccountable (the President has, basically, no real power).

Things are going to crash, sooner or later, and voting isn't going to change that; I just find it amusing that people who support leftism are advocating for their own hell on earth. Not that they're making a difference, mind you - like I said, the machine has a mind of its own - but it's ironic, nonetheless, and provides good opportunities for schadenfreude.

As for the misguided and impotent tea parties? For those dumb (but honest and hardworking) people I feel pity.

 

[Varya]

So, we shouldn't complain about nostalgic properties clogging up a market because Glenn Beck and Prop.8 Supporters are doing real harm? Apples and Oranges, Bob.

Not liking the dragging out of old properties is not a Major action, it's minor at best. It isn't like you have to choose between Hating on a Nintendo console made for Remaking (the 3DS) and voting.

Nahh, I see what he means. He's saying nostalgia isn't bad when it's about reliving the joys of your childhood anew, but it is when it's about bringing the world back to the way it was in your childhood.

 

[cymonsgames]

I'm sorry but if you are not willing to discuss it maybe you shouldn't say ignorant things.

Calling me ignorant. Great way to start.

The reason (at least in my mind) why the Gay Marriage thing is used so often is because it's a really clear example.

If it's so obvious

It's a good baseline for establishing you have decent values.

Now you're calling me indecent, but have yet to support your argument.

To be opposed to Gay Marriage is, when you get down to it, someone giving a fuck where there should be no fucks given.

Oh, now your supporting your argument with empathetics. Take away the emphatics and all you have are vague hand wavyings.

As long as Gay marriage isn't a normal thing in one of the world's biggest and most influential countries, it should be brought up, because it's a goddamn huge injustice.

I've got to help you out here. This is embarrassing.

What you mean to say is that "according to your understanding and definition of marriage there's no reason why gender should have anything to do with it." Just say that next time. Otherwise you sound like you're just parroting what you've heard on Fox news. Unless you are just parroting what you've heard on Fox news is which case you should refrain from posting in public forums.

I'm honestly really curious now. Why is it even potentially right to deny someone else the same rights you enjoy?

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

I'll message you.

Oh, but by all means, please do explain. What exactly is right about not having gay marriage? What would be bad about it?

Personally, I don't care. See! Thats what's right. I don't really care, because I'm not gay, but I still think just straight up saying no is a dick move. Because, in all honesty, why should anyone who isn't gay care?

I like that. A little condescending, but the heads in the right place. I'll message you if you like.

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

Actually, I've heard a secular argument:

Money. If we allow more people to get married, that means more people will get devorced, which takes up the courts time and money. And that also means that if they file together, they pay less in taxes. So we are left with a net loss.

Which means we either cut spending, raise taxes, or both.

The former is not popular with those on the left, and the second is not popular to the right.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. It just is fully non-God based.

Well, regardless if you agree or not, it's a bloody lousy argument. Yes, it'd cost money, but if you are gonna exclude people from marriage because of the cost of the divorce, you should A)work do de-legalize marriage as a whole, or B)make sure the people that are getting the divorce are paying for their costs, or C) base the discrimination on marriage rights on people more likely to divorce.
You can't say "Ok, we can have SOME marriages, but we can't afford more than X so these groups are not allowed to"
That is not an argument against gay marriage, that is an argument against marriage.

You're missing the point of the argument, dear reader

You, I assume, favor gay marriage

Allrighty then, how do you pay for it?

I'd like to dip my toes into this one but there's no way to do so without digging into the deeper issue that I just don't see this as being the forum for. But I will point out this: There's another monetary concern besides divorces. Married couples get tax breaks just for being married. And there's a very good reason for that but it would involve getting deeper than I care to.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I am getting tired of the gay marriage thing being dredged up over and over again whenever someone wants to show how liberal they are. I agree that the majority of people who oppose gay marriage generally do so for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't make it right. If you're right for the wrong reasons, you're still right.

But I'm not willing to even discuss why they might be right with people who are so bent on being "forward thinking" that they can't consider that maybe, just maybe, the ignorant, scared, slavering masses might be right about this one.

Give us SOME credit, at least. Is it impossible to believe that we hold those beliefs out of genuine...erm, belief, and not out of a desire to feel superior?

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

Actually, I've heard a secular argument:

Money. If we allow more people to get married, that means more people will get devorced, which takes up the courts time and money. And that also means that if they file together, they pay less in taxes. So we are left with a net loss.

Which means we either cut spending, raise taxes, or both.

The former is not popular with those on the left, and the second is not popular to the right.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. It just is fully non-God based.

Well, regardless if you agree or not, it's a bloody lousy argument. Yes, it'd cost money, but if you are gonna exclude people from marriage because of the cost of the divorce, you should A)work do de-legalize marriage as a whole, or B)make sure the people that are getting the divorce are paying for their costs, or C) base the discrimination on marriage rights on people more likely to divorce.
You can't say "Ok, we can have SOME marriages, but we can't afford more than X so these groups are not allowed to"
That is not an argument against gay marriage, that is an argument against marriage.

You're missing the point of the argument, dear reader

You, I assume, favor gay marriage

Allrighty then, how do you pay for it?

...the same way we pay for straight marriage? By having them pay for their own wedding? I don't get what you're getting at.

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

"Some guy thinks the Thundercats redesign is the worst thing that has ever happen"

and then they saw the new Cheetara

then it was never heard of again

hehe, and how flirty they made her XD oh, and the cleavage shots, musent for got those XD

but its true, least far as entertainment goes, people ***** an whine how its 'not the same' till they get there hands on it, most the time anyway

far as the politics side of things >.> i'm just gonna say 'only politician that's NOT trying to fuck every one over cept whom ever bought them, is dead'

A little off topic, but the production values on that show are insane.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I'm honestly really curious now. Why is it even potentially right to deny someone else the same rights you enjoy?

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

I'll message you.

Oh, but by all means, please do explain. What exactly is right about not having gay marriage? What would be bad about it?

Personally, I don't care. See! Thats what's right. I don't really care, because I'm not gay, but I still think just straight up saying no is a dick move. Because, in all honesty, why should anyone who isn't gay care?

I like that. A little condescending, but the heads in the right place. I'll message you if you like.

I know I wasn't really involved, but I am interested. Could you please message me too?

 

[Sid Meier]

This is a good episode.

 

[Draconalis]

I really find it odd that every time an political opinion is given in The United States of America it's always Republican or Democrat. We have So many damn political movements it's just freaky I think we have 7 and that for a country with just 17 million people.

But how many of those movements make it to president?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Honestly, I couldn't care less for gay marriage, but I've never heard an argument against it that was any stronger than "God said so!", and that's simply not a compelling reason. I'd like your take on it, since you clearly disagree.

Actually, I've heard a secular argument:

Money. If we allow more people to get married, that means more people will get devorced, which takes up the courts time and money. And that also means that if they file together, they pay less in taxes. So we are left with a net loss.

Which means we either cut spending, raise taxes, or both.

The former is not popular with those on the left, and the second is not popular to the right.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. It just is fully non-God based.

Well, regardless if you agree or not, it's a bloody lousy argument. Yes, it'd cost money, but if you are gonna exclude people from marriage because of the cost of the divorce, you should A)work do de-legalize marriage as a whole, or B)make sure the people that are getting the divorce are paying for their costs, or C) base the discrimination on marriage rights on people more likely to divorce.
You can't say "Ok, we can have SOME marriages, but we can't afford more than X so these groups are not allowed to"
That is not an argument against gay marriage, that is an argument against marriage.

You're missing the point of the argument, dear reader

You, I assume, favor gay marriage

Allrighty then, how do you pay for it?

I think that's a bit of a weird argument. Are you saying some people shouldn't have basic rights because they have the same chance as Straight Couples to get divorced?

"Sorry, but we were here first and we don't need anyone else getting divorced right now."

In all honesty I would trust gay people to stay together more than straights: They already committed to an "alternate" lifestyle. Most "Middle Americans" treat the institution of marriage with so little respect that they deserve it less!

My parents have married in the double digits, combined. That includes getting divorced. Wouldn't it be more fair to put a Marriage cap on so every Cletus, Bob and Bob Jr. can't keep costing us money?

Also, wouldn't having more family units benefit our economy? When you marry, that's a lot of money being pumped back into the economy. (Cakes, invitation, etc.)

You're missing the point, just slightly

You can get rid of this argument by presenting a way to make up for the shortfall in tax collection it would cause. That's all you have to do.

 

[KushinLos]

Excellent show. I admit I fell for the 'good old days' nostalgia for a while in my twenties, though I would put forward that I never was for some of it, and I'd be foolish to blatantly ignore that that nostalgia seems to rule the mainstream Republican party today. While I've always been an independent, it was this nostalgia that has lead me to never vote for a Democrat and even now that I realize that I had no good reason to not vote for a Democrat beyond that they were a Democrat, that is no good reason, the realization has lead me to look at the other side's arguments more seriously than if I hadn't. In fact, the majority of my disagreement has been simply in what I think is a better solution to the problems we've been forced to live with. To end this, I would like to say that currently if my favorite candidate, Congressman Ron Paul, doesn't get the nomination, I'd rather Obama get a second term. I won't vote for him, not if the election were today, but I would prefer him to anyone else the Republicans are talking about.

 

[Varya]

Just a few comments on where the left has got us:

The Welfare State has destroyed the black underclass, by offering welfare benefits to single moms, driving men out of the households. The result is a criminal underclass, where young boys are without father figures, and grow up to engage in violence like women, but with men's strength (rap and ghetto culture).

Social progressivism has led to ever-increasing budgets for entitlements, leading the government to bankruptcy and insolvency.

Nanny-state laws over-regulate small businesses, so that only the huge corporate concerns can afford the lawyers needed to navigate the labyrinthine regulations.

The producers and makers (typically 'evil' white males) are demonized, while the unproductive moochers are pedastalized.

No Fault Divorce destroyed marriage, leading to greater unhappiness, even amongst those who stay married, than 'oppressed' women from the 1950s.

That said, none of this is going to stop any time soon - the US is like a car racing down a mountain, the Dems are pushing on the gas pedal, while the Reps are pushing on the breaks - but nobody's putting things in reverse. Year by year, the big government machine gets bigger, more unwieldly, under the control of Civil Service who are unelected, and unnaccountable (the President has, basically, no real power).

Things are going to crash, sooner or later, and voting isn't going to change that; I just find it amusing that people who support leftism are advocating for their own hell on earth. Not that they're making a difference, mind you - like I said, the machine has a mind of its own - but it's ironic, nonetheless, and provides good opportunities for schadenfreude.

As for the misguided and impotent tea parties? For those dumb (but honest and hardworking) people I feel pity.

Maybe if you looked at a country that actually applied Left-wing politics for about 50 years, like, oh say Sweden, you'd see that we are a country with high equality, very few cases of corrupt politicians and our liberal views on the nuclear family means most people don't give a fuck if you have two daddies, and that people don't feel peer-pressure to stay in an abusive relationship.
I'm not saying we have a perfect country, but it seems to me that in the US you take the view that if the current government don't make peace on earth within it's first year, every little thing that goes wrong, from earthquakes to individual deaths, are blamed on the President. This goes for both parties btw. Maybe if you actually had some form of law that required politicians to back up their claims, so that they couldn't get away with making statistics up their asses or deny proven science, you'd have some facts based on actual, unbiased studies. Problem is of course that a studies performed by educated people is considered bias by 50% of the population that thinks that actually being educated makes you bias to "the science religion" and that proof are easily disputed with "common sense"

I wen't on a bit of a rant there but your comment really rubbed me the wrong way.