Thing is, if you pronounce my name with the English pronunciation, like "Lewis," I'm fine with that as you are probably speaking to me in English. If a Japanese dude wants to pronounce it "Ruisu" while speaking to me in Japanese, I'm cool with that too. Heck, someone speaking to me in Spanish can use the Spanish pronunciation and it wouldn't bother me. It's when you're speaking to me in English and use the Spanish pronunciation that I'm annoyed. My rule is either use the pronunciation appropriate for the language you're speaking or use the original language's (Portuguese in my case) pronunciation. Don't try to guess and mix and match.
Again, how can FOX still be in business if there was? FOX often spreads opinion and other biased/libelous/dishonest crap in their news broadcasts. It's one thing if you have Hannity or Beck or whoever spewing crap. It's another thing when they're spewing crap on their regular news broadcasts, which they often do.
All major news stations are biased in some way. Yes, it is the popular thing right now to point at Fox and say "look, they are not even news, it's all opinion". But people don't seem to want to point to Piers Morgan and say the same thing. Morgan is not a "hip" target right now, so people seem ignore that he does the same thing as O' Riley or Hannity for the democratic side.
Viewers are going to get a biased opinion from almost every major news station and many podcast news stations. That's just the way it is. People tend to be attracted to others who have the same opinion, and when you get a lot of people with the same opinions funding and running a organization, there is going to be a tendency to not just pick anchors who have the same opinion, but also pick stories that fit with that opinion. It is human nature to do so.
The only way now to get balanced news is to watch Fox and CNN both, hear both sides, research what you need to on the internet, and make your own decision. But people who fall into the trap of just watching one show, or station will only ever be getting the news that one set of people who are of similar opinions choose to make news.
My rule is either use the pronunciation appropriate for the language you're speaking or use the original language's (Portuguese in my case) pronunciation. Don't try to guess and mix and match.
@Belliger Don't engage in false equivalency. No other channel is even in the same league as Fox News. It's not even a conservative news network, it's a network evangelizing the Republican ideology of the day.
I'm closer to Piers ideologically, but I prefer O'Reilly because he's less of a troll. Piers really played up the whole "deportation" debacle, whereas O'Reilly gets those sorts of petitions all the time and doesn't victimize himself (personally, that is).
Unrelated to Piers: O'Reilly also is actively not a birther and doesn't call Obama a socialist, on a network that has a dedicated policy of doing so, which gives him huge brownie points in my book. And politics isn't his top priority in people, which puts him leaps and bounds above a huge number of people I have to deal with every fucking day.
I really enjoyed Jon Stewart's debate with O'Reilly, and I think it humanized him a bit in my eyes. Some of his stances and ratiocinations make me want to ragequit, but others I find myself agreeing with, and I think I'd enjoy having a beer with the guy. He seems like a likeable person when he's not on his show.
This is something people need to learn. Many of the pundits are not as intollerable as they seem on TV. It's an act, just like the dramas you see on FX and CBS. Whenever he's challenged, Glen Beck calls himself an entertainer. Don't judge O'Reily based on his show any more than you judge Malcolm McDowell for Clockwork Orange.
I'll fully admit that I used to be a Glenn Beck fan. This is back around 2003, when his radio show was very young and he played up the entertainer angle. It very much reminded me of a radio version of Jon Stewart, just leaning towards the other side of the aisle.
So yeah, my pet peeve is when people like Glenn Beck see that there is money in catering to the crazy, and change up their act to the point that I cannot stand it.
I think the reason they cater to crazy, and that there's money in crazy, is that it's very hard for many conservative viewpoints to be made humorous without also being horrifying.
It's extremely difficult to craft a joke about limiting immigration, banning abortion, restricting contraception, keeping gays from being able to marry, etc..., without stepping way over the line of good taste.
More to the point, if you make a vaguely or possibly-only-with-the-right-interpretation racist/sexist/etc... joke with that demographic, it becomes a dogwhistle for their actual beliefs.
It's extremely difficult to craft a joke about limiting immigration, banning abortion, restricting contraception, keeping gays from being able to marry, etc..., without stepping way over the line of good taste.
Wait, what? Wouldn't the jokes be made by those holding opposing views?
I totally agree with what you're saying Rym, but in this case, Beck's jokes back in the day weren't pandering to the Republican points of view. He was very Libertarian, and not at all religious, so he'd mock the Republicans when they made obvious fumbles or contradicted themselves, and would opposite side when his views conflicted with the "catering to the Christians" aspect of conservative politics.
He's changed a LOT, gone full religion, etc., and I also have a lot more perspective on how Libertarianism is a 100% impractical Mad Max recipe, but I've always lacked any sense of empathy or good taste, which explains how I listened to that stuff in the first place.
It's also appealing to go third party or independent just to be able to bemoan both sides fuckery as it happens. I know that's a part of how the libertarian party coaxed a number of my adult, white, straight, male, poor, undereducated friends into it.
It's extremely difficult to craft a joke about limiting immigration, banning abortion, restricting contraception, keeping gays from being able to marry, etc..., without stepping way over the line of good taste.
You should check out The Chaser crew, particularly "The Chaser's War on everything" and "The Hamster wheel" - Quite often, If they're overstepping the bound of good taste, they're not just stepping over the line, they're clearing it with a flying leap. And they're still beloved.
Also, they do equal opportunity piss-taking. It doesn't matter if you're politically left or right, what matters is if you've done or said something they can make fun of.
Pet peeve I ran into today, the phrase "If you assume, you make an ass out of you and me". I love puns more than I should, but you must realize, assuming is a vital part life. You cannot go through lives not making assumptions. Yes, you should think about your actions, but after you consider everything, you still have to decide and make an assumption.
Why would that be on the login screen? I mean, artificially limiting password length is kind of dumb (but makes sense in certain situations), but that's something that's only relevant when creating or updating a password.
When people get offended by the proper use of a word. e.g. Asking me about the parturition process in dogs and then calling me vulgar for using the word "bitch" to describe a female dog.
When a piece of guitar music says it has to be tuned a half step down, when really one can just play the chords one fret lower than indicated on the music.
When a piece of guitar music says it has to be tuned a half step down, when really one can just play the chords one fret lower than indicated on the music.
Fun fact: I can't play the piano in many keys, and I digitally transpose to this day... ^_^*
Comments
Viewers are going to get a biased opinion from almost every major news station and many podcast news stations. That's just the way it is. People tend to be attracted to others who have the same opinion, and when you get a lot of people with the same opinions funding and running a organization, there is going to be a tendency to not just pick anchors who have the same opinion, but also pick stories that fit with that opinion. It is human nature to do so.
The only way now to get balanced news is to watch Fox and CNN both, hear both sides, research what you need to on the internet, and make your own decision. But people who fall into the trap of just watching one show, or station will only ever be getting the news that one set of people who are of similar opinions choose to make news.
Piers Morgan is more than a pet peeve. Hating Piers Morgan is a lifestyle.
Unrelated to Piers: O'Reilly also is actively not a birther and doesn't call Obama a socialist, on a network that has a dedicated policy of doing so, which gives him huge brownie points in my book. And politics isn't his top priority in people, which puts him leaps and bounds above a huge number of people I have to deal with every fucking day.
Also, passive aggressive jerks.
So yeah, my pet peeve is when people like Glenn Beck see that there is money in catering to the crazy, and change up their act to the point that I cannot stand it.
It's extremely difficult to craft a joke about limiting immigration, banning abortion, restricting contraception, keeping gays from being able to marry, etc..., without stepping way over the line of good taste.
More to the point, if you make a vaguely or possibly-only-with-the-right-interpretation racist/sexist/etc... joke with that demographic, it becomes a dogwhistle for their actual beliefs.
He's changed a LOT, gone full religion, etc., and I also have a lot more perspective on how Libertarianism is a 100% impractical Mad Max recipe, but I've always lacked any sense of empathy or good taste, which explains how I listened to that stuff in the first place.
Also, they do equal opportunity piss-taking. It doesn't matter if you're politically left or right, what matters is if you've done or said something they can make fun of.
e.g. Asking me about the parturition process in dogs and then calling me vulgar for using the word "bitch" to describe a female dog.