Sorry, but no...just...no.
If you're interested:
Homework for Alex Day: go watch Brass Eye.
Saturday, 15 June 2013
Monday, 3 June 2013
The Uninvited Guest
There was an incident with a large spider in my room last night. This is the post I wrote afterwards to my friends on Facebook so that I didn't feel so alone...:
"There is a spider in my room. After a massive battle (me seeing it crawl under my desk, then me squeaking & poking my bin underneath with a coat hanger until it ran back out) I caught it under a mug & slipped some paper underneath, but now I'm too scared to move it (it's effing massive). I don't want to wake anyone up to get rid of it, so I've labelled it in case someone comes in in the morning & picks up the random mug in the middle of the floor & unknowingly releases the demonic creature within."
"There is a spider in my room. After a massive battle (me seeing it crawl under my desk, then me squeaking & poking my bin underneath with a coat hanger until it ran back out) I caught it under a mug & slipped some paper underneath, but now I'm too scared to move it (it's effing massive). I don't want to wake anyone up to get rid of it, so I've labelled it in case someone comes in in the morning & picks up the random mug in the middle of the floor & unknowingly releases the demonic creature within."
Follow-up comment:
"After a horrible dream about it escaping (not fun), my mum came in & got it this morning & my room is now spider-free! She also agreed that it was massive & said I was very brave for even going near it. She obviously didn't hear all the panicked breathing and the 'ohhhhh nonononononononononononoooo... Please no... Don't hide under there you little ****!'"
Sooo....yeah.... That was me going mental on Facebook to calm myself down...
I honestly have no idea where I got the strength to go near the thing. It must've been pure adrenaline - I knew I couldn't sleep with it wandering around free in my room so I just woke up; I knew I just had to trap it until the morning or I'd get no sleep (read: I had to trap it because I was scared that I'd wake up with a spider on my face in the middle of the night). I didn't want to wake up anyone else to do it, so it had to be me. I poked the bin it was hiding by, it ran back out and directly towards me *shudders*, at which point I shoved my NMBCM mug over it (Jack Skellington saves the day!). I think a big part of it was that my carpet is so dark and the lights had been off so, when I turned them on to find the spider, it wasn't too bright; this all meant that I mostly just saw a rough shape, rather than something I'm terrified of. If my carpet had been beige or my room a little bit brighter, I might've found it impossible to go near it.
Also, the spider is fine & was released in to the garden this morning - I don't like killing them, I just need them far away from me...
Thursday, 30 May 2013
TotalBiscuit vs used games (and why I politely disagree with him)
So, I saw a video by TotalBiscuit/TotalHalibut about his opinions on used games. Wanna know something? A lot of what he said made sense. I found myself going, "Yes, that's very true" and not getting as angry as a lot of his followers on Twitter (his responses to them were why I went and watched the video).
Now, I recommend you watch the video. It IS long (30 minutes-ish), but he says a lot in it and makes some very good points about how gaming's income stream is different to other forms of media. This is true and people need to realise this. He also used to work in Game, therefore knows that they have an agressive sell-used policy. I can vouch for this myself - I've often gone up to the till with a new copy of the game, only to be asked, "would you like a used copy instead?" Most of the time the used copy is only £2-£5 cheaper, and I'd rather pay that extra, knowing that my money was getting to the developers. However, I have bought used if the game is drastically cheaper & I can't afford to buy new, or if I am unable to find a new copy.
However, there ends the bits I agree with. The problem is he keeps comparing the console games model to the PC games model, saying "us PC players are going all digital" and "we have eliminated used games and we still get awesome deals on Steam". Yes, both of those are true, but the PC games sales model is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the console games one.
Yes, Steam has amazing sales (and are amazing because they also have Mac-compatible games at the same price!!), but Steam is NOT the ONLY digital platform where you can buy games. Steam is in constant competition with developers who sell direct from their websites (Minecraft, anyone?), free-to-play online games (I put a lot of hours into Runescape as a teen...), even casual gaming sites can offer some competition. PC games are also in indirect competition with everything else you can do on a PC - developers have to make sure games are cheap enough AND fun enough to stop people from closing that game & opening up YouTube. There are also far lower barriers to entry in the PC games market; you don't have to get special licensing from a huge corporation for your game to be sold to play on a PC, you don't have to meet certain criteria, you just have to make it available. Because of this, there is HUGE choice for PC gamers out there; they merely have to search in Google to find a decent game they can play, often for free.
Where can I buy digital content for my Xbox 360? Xbox live. Anywhere else? No. It's the same with the Playstation 3 and PSN. Yes, they sometimes have sales, but NEVER on new-release games like the offers you can find on Steam and hardly ever at the lower prices. Why? because each of those selling platforms are the ONLY PLACE to get digital content for those consoles (apart from some DLC packages sold in stores).
Microsoft and Sony have a monopoly when it comes to digital gaming on their platforms. Why ANYONE would see this as a good thing for consumers, I don't know. If you do, please go pick up a basic business studies book & have a read.
Right now there IS competition in the form of retail & used games - it's not perfect, but it's something. Then again, it is sometimes ignored - the other day I saw Black Ops 2 was £59.99 on PSN. How much was it in the few stores I could find it in, new? £44.99. TB did say retailers apparently pressured publishers to not have cheaper digital copies of games, but I very much doubt they have the power to say games had to be over £15 more... That's just greed, either from Sony or the publisher (or both).
The real problem is that brand new games are expensive on console. TB said that, relative to inflation, they're cheaper than before; the thing is inflation hasn't affected games that much because they are not an essential item. Food, energy and housing has gone up in price mainly because we NEED those things and we can't just stop buying them; gaming is a luxury, therefore people can easily cut it out if the prices go too high for them. This means that whilst a loaf of bread has doubled in price in my lifetime, entertainment items like games have only gone up a little (don't want to scare off all the customers, do they?). Even so, I don't often buy at launch. Most of my game collection is bought new, but months after at a much lower price - this is because I joined the current-gen console gang a few years after everyone else & now find myself constantly going back and catching-up with old games, but also because I could not (and currently cannot) afford to buy all my games at release-date value. We have a system where more cautious people who wait a few months and read everyone's reviews are the ones who are rewarded, getting a lower price & knowing more about what they are paying for (and publishers complain that not enough people buy on release-date...). Publishers have all these pre-order deals, throwing in "bonuses", which are often just codes for disk-locked content, purely aesthetic in-game features or a pretty box. You know what would increase pre-orders? £10 off the release price for pre-ordered games. If that's too much, make it £5 (see, I'm being nice). Gamers take a chance on a before it launches, they get a good deal on it.
There is also this thing, not seen in PC gaming nowadays, that ALL console games are around £40 at release. There is this 'default' price, but some games have hundreds of hours worth of high-quality content, whilst others may have 5-10. Some games are of amazing quality, and others are crap, yet they all have a similar price tag on release day (£35-45 in the UK). This doesn't happen on the PC games market - developers can work out the optimal price point for their game and have optimum sales. They don't have to go "ok...so sony/microsoft wants us to make a game worth £40. We have to develop a game in that price range". They can make the game they want. Microsoft and Sony have become better at pricing with Arcade, smaller PSN games and older titles (digital & physical), but for the big releases, they don't seem to realise that not all games are worth the same amount on release. This is one reason why I don't trust them to have the monopoly on their systems & why many people hesitate to buy at launch.
Anyway, wrapping this up (I did babble on for a bit there...), you can't just point to the PC digital games market and go, "Look, that works, stop complaining about used games being taken away". It's a different environment and until the console digital games market turns into an equally diverse space, you can't just go "all retailers are bad, booooo used games, bring on digital". I also don't think used games are as huge an issue as publishers make them out to be. Yes there are massive "pre-owned" displays in shops, but look through them and you'll find only a handful of good games. You wanna find out what boring games to avoid? You wanna find out what games have been made obsolete because publishers bring out a slightly-updated one every year? Look in pre-owned. Sooo many sports games... Used games are a great way to see how good a game is - only one copy of Uncharted 3 in there? Guess it was pretty good. Let's go see if we can buy it new. Loads of Tiger Woods games? Guess it gets pretty repetitive...best avoid that one. LOADS of copies of Aliens: Colonial Marines? Guess all the crap reviews it got were spot on... Trade-ins of crappy games feed new sales (I know because both my boyfriend & I have traded in to get brand new items) & let the consumer know what other gamers thought. Maybe that's another reason why publishers don't like used games..? Hmm?
We need a middle ground, rather than going for just one or the other. Right now, used games help give console gamers a little bit of leverage in the market. I don't mind paying a little to unlock a used game & make sure money goes STRAIGHT to the developer, but I don't like the idea of paying £10 that the developers never see & instead goes straight into EA's pocket.
It is a broken system, but a monopoly would be far, far worse.
Now, I recommend you watch the video. It IS long (30 minutes-ish), but he says a lot in it and makes some very good points about how gaming's income stream is different to other forms of media. This is true and people need to realise this. He also used to work in Game, therefore knows that they have an agressive sell-used policy. I can vouch for this myself - I've often gone up to the till with a new copy of the game, only to be asked, "would you like a used copy instead?" Most of the time the used copy is only £2-£5 cheaper, and I'd rather pay that extra, knowing that my money was getting to the developers. However, I have bought used if the game is drastically cheaper & I can't afford to buy new, or if I am unable to find a new copy.
However, there ends the bits I agree with. The problem is he keeps comparing the console games model to the PC games model, saying "us PC players are going all digital" and "we have eliminated used games and we still get awesome deals on Steam". Yes, both of those are true, but the PC games sales model is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the console games one.
Yes, Steam has amazing sales (and are amazing because they also have Mac-compatible games at the same price!!), but Steam is NOT the ONLY digital platform where you can buy games. Steam is in constant competition with developers who sell direct from their websites (Minecraft, anyone?), free-to-play online games (I put a lot of hours into Runescape as a teen...), even casual gaming sites can offer some competition. PC games are also in indirect competition with everything else you can do on a PC - developers have to make sure games are cheap enough AND fun enough to stop people from closing that game & opening up YouTube. There are also far lower barriers to entry in the PC games market; you don't have to get special licensing from a huge corporation for your game to be sold to play on a PC, you don't have to meet certain criteria, you just have to make it available. Because of this, there is HUGE choice for PC gamers out there; they merely have to search in Google to find a decent game they can play, often for free.
Where can I buy digital content for my Xbox 360? Xbox live. Anywhere else? No. It's the same with the Playstation 3 and PSN. Yes, they sometimes have sales, but NEVER on new-release games like the offers you can find on Steam and hardly ever at the lower prices. Why? because each of those selling platforms are the ONLY PLACE to get digital content for those consoles (apart from some DLC packages sold in stores).
Microsoft and Sony have a monopoly when it comes to digital gaming on their platforms. Why ANYONE would see this as a good thing for consumers, I don't know. If you do, please go pick up a basic business studies book & have a read.
Right now there IS competition in the form of retail & used games - it's not perfect, but it's something. Then again, it is sometimes ignored - the other day I saw Black Ops 2 was £59.99 on PSN. How much was it in the few stores I could find it in, new? £44.99. TB did say retailers apparently pressured publishers to not have cheaper digital copies of games, but I very much doubt they have the power to say games had to be over £15 more... That's just greed, either from Sony or the publisher (or both).
The real problem is that brand new games are expensive on console. TB said that, relative to inflation, they're cheaper than before; the thing is inflation hasn't affected games that much because they are not an essential item. Food, energy and housing has gone up in price mainly because we NEED those things and we can't just stop buying them; gaming is a luxury, therefore people can easily cut it out if the prices go too high for them. This means that whilst a loaf of bread has doubled in price in my lifetime, entertainment items like games have only gone up a little (don't want to scare off all the customers, do they?). Even so, I don't often buy at launch. Most of my game collection is bought new, but months after at a much lower price - this is because I joined the current-gen console gang a few years after everyone else & now find myself constantly going back and catching-up with old games, but also because I could not (and currently cannot) afford to buy all my games at release-date value. We have a system where more cautious people who wait a few months and read everyone's reviews are the ones who are rewarded, getting a lower price & knowing more about what they are paying for (and publishers complain that not enough people buy on release-date...). Publishers have all these pre-order deals, throwing in "bonuses", which are often just codes for disk-locked content, purely aesthetic in-game features or a pretty box. You know what would increase pre-orders? £10 off the release price for pre-ordered games. If that's too much, make it £5 (see, I'm being nice). Gamers take a chance on a before it launches, they get a good deal on it.
There is also this thing, not seen in PC gaming nowadays, that ALL console games are around £40 at release. There is this 'default' price, but some games have hundreds of hours worth of high-quality content, whilst others may have 5-10. Some games are of amazing quality, and others are crap, yet they all have a similar price tag on release day (£35-45 in the UK). This doesn't happen on the PC games market - developers can work out the optimal price point for their game and have optimum sales. They don't have to go "ok...so sony/microsoft wants us to make a game worth £40. We have to develop a game in that price range". They can make the game they want. Microsoft and Sony have become better at pricing with Arcade, smaller PSN games and older titles (digital & physical), but for the big releases, they don't seem to realise that not all games are worth the same amount on release. This is one reason why I don't trust them to have the monopoly on their systems & why many people hesitate to buy at launch.
Anyway, wrapping this up (I did babble on for a bit there...), you can't just point to the PC digital games market and go, "Look, that works, stop complaining about used games being taken away". It's a different environment and until the console digital games market turns into an equally diverse space, you can't just go "all retailers are bad, booooo used games, bring on digital". I also don't think used games are as huge an issue as publishers make them out to be. Yes there are massive "pre-owned" displays in shops, but look through them and you'll find only a handful of good games. You wanna find out what boring games to avoid? You wanna find out what games have been made obsolete because publishers bring out a slightly-updated one every year? Look in pre-owned. Sooo many sports games... Used games are a great way to see how good a game is - only one copy of Uncharted 3 in there? Guess it was pretty good. Let's go see if we can buy it new. Loads of Tiger Woods games? Guess it gets pretty repetitive...best avoid that one. LOADS of copies of Aliens: Colonial Marines? Guess all the crap reviews it got were spot on... Trade-ins of crappy games feed new sales (I know because both my boyfriend & I have traded in to get brand new items) & let the consumer know what other gamers thought. Maybe that's another reason why publishers don't like used games..? Hmm?
We need a middle ground, rather than going for just one or the other. Right now, used games help give console gamers a little bit of leverage in the market. I don't mind paying a little to unlock a used game & make sure money goes STRAIGHT to the developer, but I don't like the idea of paying £10 that the developers never see & instead goes straight into EA's pocket.
It is a broken system, but a monopoly would be far, far worse.
Here's another video that also shares my point of view & is very eloquent and well-argued. Go watch it if you have time!
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Other names Microsoft could've given to the Xbox One
I have a LOT to say about the Xbox One, but for now I'm just going to focus on the name.
I understand what they are trying to achieve with the name, to show that it is "all your entertainment needs in one box", and gamers' first choice for next-gen gaming, but it's just not the first Xbox.
So, here are some alternatives I came up with:
I understand what they are trying to achieve with the name, to show that it is "all your entertainment needs in one box", and gamers' first choice for next-gen gaming, but it's just not the first Xbox.
So, here are some alternatives I came up with:
- Xbox Focus
- Xbox Central
- Xbox Singularity
- Xbox Single
- Xbox all the Single Ladies...?
- Xbox...
- Xbox...
Ok... I guess Xbox One is a lot more consumer friendly than the ones I came up with... The ex-maths student in me just has an issue with the video game industry naming series of things with the wrong numbers (I love you, Rockstar, but I'm lookin' at you!)...
Friday, 10 May 2013
Sony hates leap years...?
I was playing with my shiny new PS3 the other day (yes, thanks to my boyfriend, I'm now one of those people with both an Xbox 360 and a PS3 - feel free to judge me) and I spotted this promotional ad for Playstation Plus:
Now, I wasn't sure what to think when I first saw this. I actually did a double take. Did Sony actually think their user base was so thick that they didn't know how many days there were in a year? Because, at first glance, it kinda looks like that.
At my second glance I didn't think this could be the case, so I concluded that Sony must have a grudge against leap years. No sneakily buying PS Plus on the 28th February in a leap year so you get an extra free day! No no no.
I can understand why that's the case, it's only fair really, but this ad just made me laugh when I saw it. I imagined some meeting with a load of executives wondering if people will try and scam an extra day of gaming out of them. To be honest, it's a little pedantic when PS Plus works out at only around a penny a day anyway...
It's the bottom line that just makes it for me. They could've put "one year's membership is 365 days"; instead it looks like they're trying to teach gamers stuff we learnt when we were kids.
To be honest, "Buy 365 days, get 90 extra free" sounds fine too...
^ This is what happens when you study marketing and advertising. Every little thing not put across as well as it could be bugs the hell out of you.
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
I tried...
I tried to make a video today. I tried.
I was all set to go this morning after a failed attempt yesterday; I had filmed a video, but I hated it so much that I deleted it straight off the camera rather than bother to upload it into iMovie. However, I deleted it knowing that today I would have a better shot at it as I would be in a much better mindset. I was right; I woke up with my creative muscles tingling, ready to make the best video EVER.
Then came the drilling.
Oh the drilling... The incessant drilling... Even when it did stop & my hopes would rise, it would begin again only a few minutes later. I couldn't even write anything with that noise boring into my head like the drill into the brickwork. It was so loud that I thought it was from next door; it wasn't. The work was being done three doors down. I don't even...
Anyway, to escape the noise (and be remotely useful) I went out and helped my mum do the shopping. We even went for cream tea! #ballin'
I came back, feeling happy, to a quiet house. Finally! I pulled up my notes, got my camera set up and was ready to go when...dogs. Barking dogs. Right outside. It just wasn't happening. I gave up.
So this is just me saying that I was planning on putting up a video today & be all productive, but the world just wouldn't let me.
Honestly. I tried.
I was all set to go this morning after a failed attempt yesterday; I had filmed a video, but I hated it so much that I deleted it straight off the camera rather than bother to upload it into iMovie. However, I deleted it knowing that today I would have a better shot at it as I would be in a much better mindset. I was right; I woke up with my creative muscles tingling, ready to make the best video EVER.
Then came the drilling.
Oh the drilling... The incessant drilling... Even when it did stop & my hopes would rise, it would begin again only a few minutes later. I couldn't even write anything with that noise boring into my head like the drill into the brickwork. It was so loud that I thought it was from next door; it wasn't. The work was being done three doors down. I don't even...
Anyway, to escape the noise (and be remotely useful) I went out and helped my mum do the shopping. We even went for cream tea! #ballin'
I came back, feeling happy, to a quiet house. Finally! I pulled up my notes, got my camera set up and was ready to go when...dogs. Barking dogs. Right outside. It just wasn't happening. I gave up.
So this is just me saying that I was planning on putting up a video today & be all productive, but the world just wouldn't let me.
Honestly. I tried.
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
I'm allowed to complain about Thatcher
Ok. So I wanted to write something about this woman before, but I thought I'd let things play out and remark upon the whole thing, mainly comments from people I have seen and heard. So now, a week after her funeral, I know what I'd like to say.
You see, there are some things that have been said over & over again by so many people, and I would just like to address a few of them.
1. "People who weren't born or were still being potty trained when she left power can't say anything about her"
So does that mean anyone born after 1945 isn't allowed to think Hitler was an arsehole or say the holocaust was horrifying? Does that mean that anyone born after 1968 isn't allowed to say that Martin Luther King Jr. played a huge part in the civil rights movement? I could go on...
To be honest, if that argument was any good, it would mean history wouldn't be taught in schools - I mean, what's the point? We can't say anything about it, because we weren't born yet...
I'm sorry, but just because we weren't old enough to remember when she was in power, doesn't mean we can't learn about what she did from books, parents, teachers, etc. Also, we grew up affected by her policies, as shown by this brilliant blog post here (go read it, or else).
2. "Someone has died, show some respect"
Don't use her death as an opportunity to shut people up - most people who are complaining now have complained about her for YEARS. Also I feel that people have a right to voice their anger that £10m was spent on her funeral at a time when everyone is facing cuts.
When Hitler died, did everyone who hated him suddenly have to be nice about him? No.
Respect is earned by what someone did in their life, not automatically dished out at death.
3. "You should respect her for what she achieved, becoming the first female Prime Minister"
Oh I can respect her for that. Doesn't mean I have to like her though.
That being said, I don't respect David Cameron one bit, so why should I respect the person he gets most of his ideas from?
4. "She put Britain back on the map"
Really? I wasn't aware we fell off it... Oh you mean politically? Oh ok. Well I guess the way she did it was the only way and I'm sure the millions who ended up unemployed or dead from her actions really appreciate that.
5. "Now is not the time to complain"
This is similar to point 2, but is all about timing. We shouldn't be complaining about her past because she's only just died.
Yes, it's sad that a family has lost a loved one, and we should let them grieve. But the world must remember that people grieved years ago as people died thanks to her policies - those people are allowed to be angry.
Whilst I wasn't out burning effigies on the day of her funeral, I could understand why others were; they didn't want the world to have a rose-tinted view of someone who was far from perfect and caused a great deal of suffering. And again, people have every right to be angry that so much was spent on such a hated woman when so many important things are facing cuts (like the A&E I rely on).
I personally ignored the funeral. Why? Because, honestly I don't care about her death. Why? Because she didn't seem to care about people (at least not the poor ones).
Also, whilst some are dancing on her grave, we must remember that Thatcherism is still very, very much alive today.
You see, there are some things that have been said over & over again by so many people, and I would just like to address a few of them.
1. "People who weren't born or were still being potty trained when she left power can't say anything about her"
So does that mean anyone born after 1945 isn't allowed to think Hitler was an arsehole or say the holocaust was horrifying? Does that mean that anyone born after 1968 isn't allowed to say that Martin Luther King Jr. played a huge part in the civil rights movement? I could go on...
To be honest, if that argument was any good, it would mean history wouldn't be taught in schools - I mean, what's the point? We can't say anything about it, because we weren't born yet...
I'm sorry, but just because we weren't old enough to remember when she was in power, doesn't mean we can't learn about what she did from books, parents, teachers, etc. Also, we grew up affected by her policies, as shown by this brilliant blog post here (go read it, or else).
2. "Someone has died, show some respect"
Don't use her death as an opportunity to shut people up - most people who are complaining now have complained about her for YEARS. Also I feel that people have a right to voice their anger that £10m was spent on her funeral at a time when everyone is facing cuts.
When Hitler died, did everyone who hated him suddenly have to be nice about him? No.
Respect is earned by what someone did in their life, not automatically dished out at death.
3. "You should respect her for what she achieved, becoming the first female Prime Minister"
Oh I can respect her for that. Doesn't mean I have to like her though.
That being said, I don't respect David Cameron one bit, so why should I respect the person he gets most of his ideas from?
4. "She put Britain back on the map"
Really? I wasn't aware we fell off it... Oh you mean politically? Oh ok. Well I guess the way she did it was the only way and I'm sure the millions who ended up unemployed or dead from her actions really appreciate that.
5. "Now is not the time to complain"
This is similar to point 2, but is all about timing. We shouldn't be complaining about her past because she's only just died.
Yes, it's sad that a family has lost a loved one, and we should let them grieve. But the world must remember that people grieved years ago as people died thanks to her policies - those people are allowed to be angry.
Whilst I wasn't out burning effigies on the day of her funeral, I could understand why others were; they didn't want the world to have a rose-tinted view of someone who was far from perfect and caused a great deal of suffering. And again, people have every right to be angry that so much was spent on such a hated woman when so many important things are facing cuts (like the A&E I rely on).
I personally ignored the funeral. Why? Because, honestly I don't care about her death. Why? Because she didn't seem to care about people (at least not the poor ones).
Also, whilst some are dancing on her grave, we must remember that Thatcherism is still very, very much alive today.
Monday, 15 April 2013
Justin - Don't reduce Anne Frank to a 'Belieber'...
So... Justin put this in the guestbook at the Anne Frank House:
"Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a belieber."
As someone who has been to the Anne Frank House and also signed the guestbook, I wanted to say a few things on the matter.
I also just want to say, I understand people who are saying his comments make her relatable to his young fans today - yes, maybe, but surely he could've just said about her age? Isn't that enough? Why does he have to directly link her with them? I've tried to think of other ways he could say it, relating her to his fans, but they still would sound so self-centred if they were coming from him.
And to the people saying "well people are talking about Anne Frank now, maybe his fans will read about her."
1. Anne Frank is more admired than Justin Bieber
2. Anne Frank is studied in schools across the world
3. Anne Frank has had countless documentaries made about her
4. Anne Frank's writing may go over the heads of some Bieber fans (mainly the ones that scream death threats at anyone who goes near their beloved Justin).
I know for a fact that if I have kids, I will teach them about Anne Frank, her family & the struggles of everyone who suffered during the Holocaust.
I will not be teaching them about Justin Bieber.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Dear Daily Mail (WARNING - I'm being all political..!)
Ok. So I hate this paper, but due to the outrageous and crap articles it publishes, it often ends up on my Facebook news feed. This one I just couldn't ignore and am writing an open letter to the editor.
Here goes....
Dear Mr Dacre,
Can I just ask what was going through your mind when you approved this article?
"Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born out of welfare dependency" by A. N. Wilson.
I am aware of the Daily Mail's viewpoint on the welfare system (and it's idea of 'journalism'), but this story is most certainly not a "perfect parable for our age" - it is the sad story of a seriously messed-up couple who killed six children whilst trying to frame someone for attempted murder. A. N. Wilson is using those deaths to push a political agenda by painting all those on welfare with the same brush as those parents. Words fail me.
To steal a brilliant quote from another letter to you, posted on the thread in which I first saw this article:
"At the time of the Shipman murders, did you suggest that he was representative of the dangers of General Practice? Of course not."
So why do you say the Philpotts are the "prefect parable"? Kids I grew up with grew up on the benefits system (and in the few council flats Thatcher didn't manage to sell-off) and now they're all hard-working members of the public, paying taxes. Yeah, you read that correctly - working and PAYING TAXES. Something some of the more wealthy members of our society don't seem to do very well...
But anyway, you say that his dependency on the welfare system made him do this? Well what did the judge think about that?
"Jurors were also told that Philpott may have hoped to obtain a bigger council house, but Mrs Justice Thirlwall said welfare dependency had not caused him to kill." BBC News
Well I think that answers my question. Then again, what does a judge with years of experience of dealing with criminals have compared with a sensationalist journalist with an agenda? Hmm...
In my humble opinion, this was a man who liked sex and being in control. He lived with 2 women and controlled them, their bodies and all their finances. He had kids with both. In fact, this was over a custody battle with his mistress who moved out, taking her kids with her. And before you all go "it was because of the money!", no. It wasn't over the benefit money she was taking from him - he didn't like that she had stood up to him and told him where to stick it, taking his kids and her body with her. He lost control over her and access to his kids and didn't like it. It damaged his pride.
He was angry at what she had done so wanted to do something about it. They wanted to get those kids back and get back at her at the same time. They wanted to frame her and blame her for the fire so they could get their kids back, but they screwed it up and ended up killing 6 of their kids in the process. Now they've been found guilty and will likely be locked away for a long time to prevent them from doing anything else stupid and harming more innocent people.
This guy wasn't evil, he was selfish, stupid and controlling. He was willing to put his kids' lives at risk to frame someone for arson & attempted murder because that person said no to him. He didn't think for one second that he might not be able to rescue the kids inside and neither did his wife or the guy that helped them.
To blame this mess of a man on the welfare system is bloody stupid. There are plenty of controlling men & women higher up in the world who hate it when anyone says no to them. There are plenty of murders over affairs and people leaving one another in all walks of life - it's not just restricted to those on benefits.
This pilot supposedly murdered his ex-wife because she wouldn't give him any of her money thanks to a prenup - should all people married to pilots be worried? Oh, but wait, that must have been a one-off - only those living off of benefits are greedy to the point of killing, aren't they?
Seriously, stop using the tragic deaths of six kids to push forward your own agenda with some thin link and a thin veil of "yes it was a good idea, but look what happens when you just give them money..."
You know why we give them money? So they don't die. So they don't go hungry. So they don't freeze to death in the freakishly cold weather we've been having recently. Yes there are cases where people are just trying to get cash, but benefit fraud accounts for only 0.7% of the money spent on welfare. Most people genuinely need the help. A house with central heating is better than dealing with famine, yes - but what's the point if you can't afford to turn it on? In fact, your own site said that the death toll from the recent cold weather could reach 2500, mostly the elderly on pensions, which makes up the biggest chunk of benefits spending, but we don't see you having a go at the elderly do you? No, because even your readers would turn on you then.
The benefits system is not perfect (especially now thanks to all the cuts), and not everyone on benefits is an upstanding citizen, but neither are all middle class or rich people; there are people who do bad and stupid things no matter what class they are in or how much money they have. Stop vilifying everyone on benefits when most people are just using them to get by and make sure they have a roof over their heads.
Stick to what you're best at: putting up lots of paparazzi-snapped pictures of scantily clad females with creepy captions (even the young ones), and endless pointless celebrity stories.
Regards,
Ellen Rose
----
(ok.... the last bit was a bit snappy, but, come on, it's the Daily Mail...)
----
Edit: Was thinking this over a lot and I just wanted to add an extra important piece of information: you know all the poor people who aren't the most reputable members of society? The anti-social? The drug dealers? The threatening? You know who has to deal with them more than any other part of society? Other poor people - the poor who are just trying to get by and are stuck in a situation. Everyone likes to have a go at those on welfare when they're the ones who are most likely to live next to the extreme cases that end up on Jeremy Kyle.
----
Edit: Was thinking this over a lot and I just wanted to add an extra important piece of information: you know all the poor people who aren't the most reputable members of society? The anti-social? The drug dealers? The threatening? You know who has to deal with them more than any other part of society? Other poor people - the poor who are just trying to get by and are stuck in a situation. Everyone likes to have a go at those on welfare when they're the ones who are most likely to live next to the extreme cases that end up on Jeremy Kyle.
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Be careful what you Tweet....
Ok... So I posted a tweet today that I thought pointed out something interesting.
The latest "Becoming YouTube", Girls on YouTube, caused a bit of a stir as it seemed to suggest that there just weren't as many girls out there making videos. It actually opens with the question "Why do you think more girls don't do YouTube?" - the assumption is there for all to see and this idea continues throughout the whole thing.
I won't go into details as I already made a response to it (you can see it here), but, in preparation for a shout-out video for some fellow ladies, I went back to the channel and noticed something interesting.
Some channels have a "Featured Channels" list. I don't personally have one at the moment as I currently prefer to do shout-outs in videos or tweet videos to my followers. However, it is something I'm considering adding at some point - it paints an interesting picture, showing who people like to be associated with and who they like to promote, so I decided to look at the one for the home of Becoming YouTube to see if there was a reason why they thought fewer girls did YouTube than in actuality.
Maybe there was a reason.
I noticed that ALL of the Featured Channels on the page, were male.
After watching the BYT episode, I got the impression that Ben was hugely underestimating just how many girls are out there making good videos. Now, in my tweet I said "any girls" because I was addressing that there weren't any girls in his featured channels.
When Benjamin read it, he assumed I thought he thought there weren't any girls on YouTube. He bombarded me with tweets & told me to stop "spreading lies". I apologised, as I phrased it that way because I was focusing on the channels list, not saying he'd said that, that I was exaggerating to point out something about that list. I pointed this out again later in a tweet, just in case anyone else had missed it.
It became a huge mess of tweets that I lost track of, some of his tweets to me disappeared/have since been deleted & I just stopped replying to him because I didn't want to get into a heated argument & he became extremely rude and patronising (and I was starting to slip into being that too). Nothing I was going to say was going to reassure him that I didn't actually think that and that you can't take every tweet at face-value. All he said about the list was that "you have the same number of girls in yours" - yes, none, the same number as boys in my list, because I don't have one as I just promote in-video instead. Anyone reading only his tweet would think I was a hypocrite with a boys-only list like his. I'm not. I don't have ANYONE on my list, at least not at this moment in time.
Anyway, Benjamin, I'm sorry it came across that I was "spreading lies". I wasn't, honestly. My followers hopefully knew exactly what I meant as they should've already watched your BYT video and my response video to it. I was just restricted by Twitter character-limits and made an exaggerated tongue-in-cheek statement as a commentary on the list to make a point (maybe girls aren't seen much because people don't promote them as much). That was a mistake as it came across like I was just being rude about you & I will make sure to spell stuff out a bit better in future so that no one gets the wrong idea from my tweets. I wasn't having a go at you, or trying to start an argument either, I was just interested to see what you'd say about your featured channels, that's why I @ mentioned you.
I would've tweeted this all to you btw, as I wanted to come back a little while after I left our 'conversation' & apologise if I came across like a mean-spirited cowbag in my original and subsequent tweets, but I can't, because you've blocked me. I'd understand you doing this if I'd hounded you with tweets, but I didn't; I walked away, you hounded me (and have since deleted many of your more patronising and rude tweets to me). Oh well. Sorry anyway - hope I didn't upset you too much. I honestly wasn't trying to be a bitch to a stranger online.
Anyway, let this be a lesson to everyone on Twitter - be VERY careful with what you tweet because, without context & not knowing you, people might not know when you're being tongue-in-cheek and think you're just being rude. Then, they might get offended and have a go at you. Similarly, don't take every tweet at face-value - someone may be joking, being sarcastic or exaggerating for effect.
Ya gotta love Twitter...
The latest "Becoming YouTube", Girls on YouTube, caused a bit of a stir as it seemed to suggest that there just weren't as many girls out there making videos. It actually opens with the question "Why do you think more girls don't do YouTube?" - the assumption is there for all to see and this idea continues throughout the whole thing.
I won't go into details as I already made a response to it (you can see it here), but, in preparation for a shout-out video for some fellow ladies, I went back to the channel and noticed something interesting.
Some channels have a "Featured Channels" list. I don't personally have one at the moment as I currently prefer to do shout-outs in videos or tweet videos to my followers. However, it is something I'm considering adding at some point - it paints an interesting picture, showing who people like to be associated with and who they like to promote, so I decided to look at the one for the home of Becoming YouTube to see if there was a reason why they thought fewer girls did YouTube than in actuality.
Maybe there was a reason.
I noticed that ALL of the Featured Channels on the page, were male.
I thought this was intriguing & decided to share this with my followers & mention Benjamin Cook to point out to him what I had seen. My tweet was:
Now, I am restricted character-wise by Twitter. Also, just because you read something on Twitter in one way, doesn't mean that's what the writer meant.
After watching the BYT episode, I got the impression that Ben was hugely underestimating just how many girls are out there making good videos. Now, in my tweet I said "any girls" because I was addressing that there weren't any girls in his featured channels.
When Benjamin read it, he assumed I thought he thought there weren't any girls on YouTube. He bombarded me with tweets & told me to stop "spreading lies". I apologised, as I phrased it that way because I was focusing on the channels list, not saying he'd said that, that I was exaggerating to point out something about that list. I pointed this out again later in a tweet, just in case anyone else had missed it.
It became a huge mess of tweets that I lost track of, some of his tweets to me disappeared/have since been deleted & I just stopped replying to him because I didn't want to get into a heated argument & he became extremely rude and patronising (and I was starting to slip into being that too). Nothing I was going to say was going to reassure him that I didn't actually think that and that you can't take every tweet at face-value. All he said about the list was that "you have the same number of girls in yours" - yes, none, the same number as boys in my list, because I don't have one as I just promote in-video instead. Anyone reading only his tweet would think I was a hypocrite with a boys-only list like his. I'm not. I don't have ANYONE on my list, at least not at this moment in time.
Anyway, Benjamin, I'm sorry it came across that I was "spreading lies". I wasn't, honestly. My followers hopefully knew exactly what I meant as they should've already watched your BYT video and my response video to it. I was just restricted by Twitter character-limits and made an exaggerated tongue-in-cheek statement as a commentary on the list to make a point (maybe girls aren't seen much because people don't promote them as much). That was a mistake as it came across like I was just being rude about you & I will make sure to spell stuff out a bit better in future so that no one gets the wrong idea from my tweets. I wasn't having a go at you, or trying to start an argument either, I was just interested to see what you'd say about your featured channels, that's why I @ mentioned you.
I would've tweeted this all to you btw, as I wanted to come back a little while after I left our 'conversation' & apologise if I came across like a mean-spirited cowbag in my original and subsequent tweets, but I can't, because you've blocked me. I'd understand you doing this if I'd hounded you with tweets, but I didn't; I walked away, you hounded me (and have since deleted many of your more patronising and rude tweets to me). Oh well. Sorry anyway - hope I didn't upset you too much. I honestly wasn't trying to be a bitch to a stranger online.
Anyway, let this be a lesson to everyone on Twitter - be VERY careful with what you tweet because, without context & not knowing you, people might not know when you're being tongue-in-cheek and think you're just being rude. Then, they might get offended and have a go at you. Similarly, don't take every tweet at face-value - someone may be joking, being sarcastic or exaggerating for effect.
Ya gotta love Twitter...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)