My frustration and annoyance with tabloid-newspapers and other similar trash-newspapers grows by the day. They are filled with non-news that they report in a way that makes them sound like the most important piece of news in the known universe. Like _the_ news for today: "PARIS HILTON in Helsinki!". Is that REALLY interesting piece of news? Is it important? And why is the headline shouting at me? Why do they use all-caps?
Those caps and exclamation points are there to obviously make the news seems important. It's so important that they need to shout it at me. Well, excuse me, but what makes that particular piece of news so important? Why should I or anyone else care when some airheaded bimbo who is famous for being famous (really, has she ever really DONE anything notable?) is visiting Helsinki? And the sad thing is that there's about zillion idiots out there who do find that news really interesting and important...
Sure, the tabloids sometimes report on genuine news. But when they do so, they do it in a emotional way. They try to appeal to the feelings and emotions of the readers. Like during the Jokela Shooting they made huge headlines how the "principal tried to save the lives of the pupils" and was then shot and killed. We got articles about what the principal was like, what kind of family she had etc. etc. None of that was relevant to the actual news at all. Of course, the actual articles about the incident were filled with generalizations, errors, speculation and just plain crap. Stuff like "Why did the shooter do this? We might never know", despite the fact that he left behind a manifesto where he explained his twisted rationale. Tabloids said that "Should we blame computer games for this? Did he train using computer games?", when the shooter specifically said that his actions should not be blamed on games, movies or anything like that, and how everyone with a working brain will see that killing a person with a handgun is VERY different when compared to "killing" a bunch of pixels with a click of a mouse. But now, logic and facts never entered the equation when the tabloids smelled money.
It's time to draw a line in the sand. No more stupidity. We should expect more from the media.
Showing posts with label idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idiots. Show all posts
Stupidity
I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of stupidity. It seems that it surrounds us, no matter where we go. Here are few notable things I have encountered recently:
Smoking
A while ago Finland banned smoking in restaurants and bars (hooray!). Of course the decision was preceded by the typical "if you don't like smoking, stay at home!" and/or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Now the talk has moved on to smoking in balconies. Should it be bannable or not? And, of course, the discussion follows familiar paths: "If you don't like the smoke, you can always close your windows!" or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Well, boo-frigging-hoo! Yes, this might be a question of "rights". But what rights are we talking about here? Whose rights are more important: smokers right to actively poison their surroundings, or non-smokers right to breathe air that is NOT filled with carcinogens?
Hell, by that logic, we could complain because the law denies people the right to punch strangers in the street in the face. After all, if they don't like to get punched, they can always stay at home, right? Why is it perfectly OK to pollute air with tobacco-smoke, whereas it's strictly verboten to punch people? Why is anti-smoking-laws "trampling on the rights of smokers", whereas anti-violence-laws are NOT trampling on the rights of violent people?
One of the politicians in Finland (who I normally dislike) floated an idea that I actually like: Finland could ban sales of tobacco in around 2030 or so. Smoking itself would still be legal, it would just be illegal to sell the stuff. I think that's an interesting idea, but why wait so long? Ban sales in 2015, along with total ban on smoking in public places. If someone still wants to smoke, they would have to do it somewhere where it absolutely would not bother anyone else. Besides, if you want to smoke, you can always stay at home, right?
Religious stupidity
So far, Finland has been quite spared from the religious stupidity that seems to plague large parts of the world (I'm looking at you, USA!). But we still have our share of crackpots.
One of the fine elected members of city council of Espoo (member of Christian Democrats as it happens) somehow managed to make it so that schools can no longer take the pupils on a field-trip to one particular museum, without parents explicit permission. Why? Well, that museum has a collection of artifacts that had been used in various pagan-rituals in South America (among other places), and the council-member is concerned that those items have "magical powers" that could harm the children. What the f*ck?
If I were a resident of Espoo, I would be up in arms about this. I would do everything in my power to have this person kicked out of the council, due to the fact that she seems to be insane. Who the hell votes for these idiots?
Creationists
Again, this seems to be something that we have been mostly spared so far. But still: we have our share of idiots. This isn't a major issue or anything, but it's very annoying because it demonstrates lack of thinking. Few days ago I ran in to the age-old argument by creationists: "Since theory of evolution doesn't explain everything, and evolutionists disagree with each other over some details in the theory, it means that evolution is a lie and creationism should be teached in schools alongside evolution!". No, you damn idiots, it does NOT mean that! Sheesh! Hell, do creationists agree on everything, and do they know (or claim to know) everything? If they don't, then doesn't that mean that creationism is a lie as well (well, it is, but for other reasons)?
And yes, creation-theory IS teached in Finnish schools. But it's teached in classes that handle religions, myths and philosophy. Evolution is teached in biology-classes, and that's the way it should be. And anyone who tries to cram creationism in to science-classes will immediately make it to my "list".
Smoking
A while ago Finland banned smoking in restaurants and bars (hooray!). Of course the decision was preceded by the typical "if you don't like smoking, stay at home!" and/or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Now the talk has moved on to smoking in balconies. Should it be bannable or not? And, of course, the discussion follows familiar paths: "If you don't like the smoke, you can always close your windows!" or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Well, boo-frigging-hoo! Yes, this might be a question of "rights". But what rights are we talking about here? Whose rights are more important: smokers right to actively poison their surroundings, or non-smokers right to breathe air that is NOT filled with carcinogens?
Hell, by that logic, we could complain because the law denies people the right to punch strangers in the street in the face. After all, if they don't like to get punched, they can always stay at home, right? Why is it perfectly OK to pollute air with tobacco-smoke, whereas it's strictly verboten to punch people? Why is anti-smoking-laws "trampling on the rights of smokers", whereas anti-violence-laws are NOT trampling on the rights of violent people?
One of the politicians in Finland (who I normally dislike) floated an idea that I actually like: Finland could ban sales of tobacco in around 2030 or so. Smoking itself would still be legal, it would just be illegal to sell the stuff. I think that's an interesting idea, but why wait so long? Ban sales in 2015, along with total ban on smoking in public places. If someone still wants to smoke, they would have to do it somewhere where it absolutely would not bother anyone else. Besides, if you want to smoke, you can always stay at home, right?
Religious stupidity
So far, Finland has been quite spared from the religious stupidity that seems to plague large parts of the world (I'm looking at you, USA!). But we still have our share of crackpots.
One of the fine elected members of city council of Espoo (member of Christian Democrats as it happens) somehow managed to make it so that schools can no longer take the pupils on a field-trip to one particular museum, without parents explicit permission. Why? Well, that museum has a collection of artifacts that had been used in various pagan-rituals in South America (among other places), and the council-member is concerned that those items have "magical powers" that could harm the children. What the f*ck?
If I were a resident of Espoo, I would be up in arms about this. I would do everything in my power to have this person kicked out of the council, due to the fact that she seems to be insane. Who the hell votes for these idiots?
Creationists
Again, this seems to be something that we have been mostly spared so far. But still: we have our share of idiots. This isn't a major issue or anything, but it's very annoying because it demonstrates lack of thinking. Few days ago I ran in to the age-old argument by creationists: "Since theory of evolution doesn't explain everything, and evolutionists disagree with each other over some details in the theory, it means that evolution is a lie and creationism should be teached in schools alongside evolution!". No, you damn idiots, it does NOT mean that! Sheesh! Hell, do creationists agree on everything, and do they know (or claim to know) everything? If they don't, then doesn't that mean that creationism is a lie as well (well, it is, but for other reasons)?
And yes, creation-theory IS teached in Finnish schools. But it's teached in classes that handle religions, myths and philosophy. Evolution is teached in biology-classes, and that's the way it should be. And anyone who tries to cram creationism in to science-classes will immediately make it to my "list".
