C.U.N.T. ACTION please: "Feed a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've got competition." (1804 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.36 on 35 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by FelizJBirth (View user info) at 2005-02-27 18:15:08 EST
This is essentially the same as an older post of mine, I just switched a few things around and checked the spelling, grammar etc. Link to original C.U.N.T. post: http://www.ubersite.com/m/60756
---------------------------
This post is addressed to anyone who agrees, whether they realize it or not, with the following statement: America, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, is immune to criticism and criticism is tantamount to treason.
Of course, nobody would ever admit that they ACTUALLY felt that way with a few possible exceptions. Just as most Christians would never tell you that they realize that many of their beliefs are in opposition to the evidence available. Instead, they would simply dismiss the evidence as somehow meaningless. There's a reason that politics and religion are two particularly touchy subjects with people. It's because they both force people to deal with their relationship to certain power structures which aren't very hard to prove as being illegitimate.
I'm going to make the bold assumption that nobody reading this (self included) is capable of having any significant impact on the way world events unfold by their individual actions. I don't mean to suggest that people can't change the way their government behaves. I'm saying, in short, that nobody on here is an elected Republican or Democrat. Nobody on here is a billionaire or probably even a millionaire. In fact, if what I've read is correct, most of you are still teenagers.
Money is power. Power is NOT benevolent by nature. History has shown that the foremost examples of concentrated power have not been gained by handing out candy to babies. Ironically, what I just said is often used to further justify people's twisted beliefs. For example, if one was to even suggest that there might be something wrong with the capitalist system, they would quickly be lectured about the selfish nature of man, thus necessitating such a system. If man is naturally selfish, then why would extremely wealthy and powerful people care about you? In fact, they're encouraged not to by the aforementioned argument. After all, not caring about people is what creates economic growth, right?
Here's a little tidbit of American history some of you might not know. During the debates between the founding fathers over the content of the constitution, the very first thing they discussed was something James Madison called "the protection of the minority of the opulent from the majority". That's an 18th century way of saying that they needed to ensure they could reap the benefits of a class system, while at the same time proclaiming to be a democratic republic. Apparently, Madison himself actually believed that the "minority of the opulent" would not take advantage of the majority. In Madison's defense, as he came to the end of his life, he saw that power was, in fact, NOT benevolent and spoke out about the danger of concentrated power to the newly formed republic.
Fast-forward a few hundred years later to the creation of the modern public relations industry. It used to be called propaghanda openly even in the United States but the term was quickly dropped due to bad connotations with Nazi Germany. The amount of money spent every year to make sure the public believes whatever fabrication happens to bring in the most profits is astronomical. In fact, in most cases, you pay for the "privelage" of being propaghandized. Of course, the vast majority of this comes from television now but it's still widespread in other forms of media like radio and print.
I'm sure some of you have already stopped reading this and are getting ready to post a review to tell me that the media are a bunch of bleeding heart liberal whiners (you know, like me).
Somehow, people have equated socially liberal ideas with economically liberal ideas. People can be liberal about all sorts of things, until it affects their pocketbook. Is CNN going to air a story about one of their sponsors getting caught laundering drug money? Probably not. Will they air a story praising gay marriage and then revel in their supposed tolerance? Probably.
Don't forget, a lot of Americans are, in fact, socially liberal. Therefore, sometimes it IS profitable for a brand of media to portray itself in that light.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just people doing what's in their interest. And people of little consequence, like most of us on here, are not a part of their interest except in terms of how much money we spend on whatever it is they're selling. If a person in this day and age can't see the transparent connection between big business and government and figure out the rest of the equation, then they're either mentally handicapped or extremely delusional. It's the kind of thing you should have figured out during recess in the 6th grade.
Bottom line: You're being duped. Stop embarrasing yourself by defending the actions of people who would step on you like a bug and not think twice.
I should add that the problems that come with power and corruption are obviously NOT exclusive to the United States. I'm not discussing this to try to prove how my country, or any country, is better than the United States or any other country. I can't think of a historical example where state power, or power in general, has behaved any differently. The only reason people talk about the United States is because it's arguably the most powerful state that has ever existed, particlarly in terms of military power and its capability to destroy nearly everything on the planet if it so chooses.
User Reviews
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-03-06 02:24:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
C.U.N.T. review - I'm actually going to +2 both your and Loki's comments. Not for humor, but for insight.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-03-05 07:42:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I made the mistake of posting an obviously unfocused, rambling piece for LITERARY criticism. Live and learn! Although I have come to realize that I couldn't have written this "objectively" and if I did, I would be lying to myself. I could have been less condescending, yes, but I think most people have a bias whether they like it or not. The biggest problem with the mainstream media is that it tries to be "objective" thus appealing to virtually noone (with the exception of Fox News).
Not really relevant but important to keep in mind. I'm high too so that probably has something to do with all this. =)
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-03-04 22:31:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm trying to get caught up with this and I'm most likely not in the proper frame of mind to follow it like I should to make any meaningful comments.
My first thought it that it seems a little unfocused.
then the very notion of me of all people calling something unfocused made me giggle like I was high or something
oh wait
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-04 12:03:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. review:
ok, so this was good. your point is kind of self-evident, but you did a good job of explaining your thoughts. you don't really come to any conclusion either...
just kind of fades away...
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-03-04 04:28:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Filthy, thanks for your comments. However, this was not intended to be written in essay format. I've done more essays than I would have liked to in the 5 years I spent in university so I know that this wouldn't even be passable as something like that. This is more of just me ramblng about random things. Not trying to justify it, I'm just saying don't look at it is me trying to formulate any real specific argument because it's not. It probably SHOULD have been but unfortunately I didn't write it that way.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:57:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for shandy's brilliance.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2005-03-03 13:48:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ahhh, an essay...I'm going to enjoy reviewing this one. Allow me to wax lyrical in a haze of nostalgia for a moment....
When I was doing my english degree, my essays always had three features in common - they were always handed in at least a week late, they were always a good thousand short of the required word count and I always got a fucking good mark for them. They weren't well balanced at all - they were the Joe Pesci of the essay world - short and agressive. But they had balls and as such were good fun to read, and I think that is what's lacking here.
The most important part of an essay is the first paragraph - there's no point making some great points further down is no-one can be bothered to read that far. Look at the start to your first sentence for a minute:
"This post is addressed to anyone who agrees, whether they realize it or not, with the following statement:"
Already, I'm bored. The 'whether they realize it or not' makes it clumsy and the language doesn't have any life to it. There's nothing exciting about 'agreeing with a statement' - punch it up a little. Better still, scrap all that...what's wrong with jumping directly to the issue at hand?
FILTHYISED VERSION: "Criticism of American foreign policy is tantamount to treason."
You can go on to support or refute that statement later, but your first sentence needs to be snappy, vibrant and self-explanatory.
Moving on to the second paragraph:
"There's a reason that politics and religion are two particularly touchy subjects with people. It's because they both force people to deal with their relationship to certain power structures which aren't very hard to prove as being illegitimate. "
Again, this is lifeless. Why are you telling me that there's a reason for something and then what that reason is? Just tell me the reason - cut out the padding. The jumbled negatives in "certain power structures which *aren't very hard* to prove as being *illegitimate*" is confusing - as a reader I shouldn't be forced to try and work out what it is you want to communicate. Listen to how limp your phrasing sounds - 'deal with their relationship to' is almost meaningless in this context. If the reader doesn't feel like you're in control of your argument then you've already lost the power to persuade them.
FILTHYISED VERSION: "The inflammatory nature of both politics and religion is directly linked to the weight of evidence for their illegitimacy."
Ok, third paragraph and I'm starting to beat a dead horse:
"I'm going to make the bold assumption that nobody reading this (self included) is capable of having any significant impact on the way world events unfold by their individual actions."
Oh, the irony. Why announce a bold assumption when you can just make it?
FILTHYISED VERSION: "Your individual actions are incapable of making a significant imprint on world events."
I'm not going to go through and tear the rest of this apart and I haven't read the other reviews yet so apologies if i'm covering old ground. I haven't even had a chance to contemplate your ideas yet because the way you present them is ineffectual - maybe you could try rewriting it in as few a words as possible to really get to the meat of your argument. Of course I'm only going by my own personal style with this review, but hopefully you'll find it usefull even if you disagree with it.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-03-03 06:32:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. Review:
Jesus, be clearer. You're not going to win anyone over by twisting your sentences into something resembling a tangled kite string. People will just tune out and stop paying attention.
It's basic essay writing; every paragraph has one point, and only one. Be clear in what you want to do with the piece, because this was a bit of a mess.
Light humour, too, is a good technique. It tends to make the reader like you, and want to believe what you're saying.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-03 06:17:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
CUNT review:
I like how the title draws the demographic to who you are directing this piece. You automatically think "I'm a mindless republican christian righter, maybe this would be nice."
Overall a good argument, but it seemed to be arguing too many points at once. Kind of a mental shock and awe for the intended reader. A hardline idealougue will be turned off by this from point #1.
A little condescending to the intended reader as well. If the purpose was to change minds, then this was a distraction. If you wanted to annoy a kool-aid drinker, you hit the mark.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2005-03-01 03:03:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2005-03-01 03:03:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
That Chernobyl punchline was classic. I gotta go give you a +2 for that.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-02-28 14:05:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, I know what you mean. I just put up a post today bitching about how all I tend to get are good reviews (Wah, wah, listen to me cry.), but if you are really looking to improve, getting your asshole ripped is where its at. Just so long as you can keep it from getting you down.
I'm kind of afraid of what I've set myself up for though, and I fear my first C.U.N.T. submission.
But, also keep in mind, NONE of us are professionals. If you feel strongly about a certain way you've said something, or a message that you put out there, you've got to stick with it if you think it is good.
No one can tell you how to write LIKE YOU (that is to say, "in your style").
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-28 13:33:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teephah- I'm glad you read some of what I said below because I'm really starting to think I should have chose a different piece of writing for this. Thank you for taking the time to read my attempts to justify my attitude in this post, I can now see how easily I could say the same thing, or more and better, without the verbal snarls. I've actually learned something from Ubersite, I'm practically speechless. I'm trying to not go personal on bad reviews in general but especially not on C.U.N.T. since it's entire purpose is honest criticism so I take into account any review, good or bad, that has some content.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-02-28 13:23:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah . . . now that I've read the reviews, I can see that you got bitten in the ass by the same thing that gets me many times . . . the dreaded re-write. I feel your pain.
It seems like when I write something, I write it all, right then. When (more like "if") I come back to it later, I'm always in another "place." My perspective is just a LITTLE bit different, and then getting my two perspectives to synch up can be a nightmare.
That accounts for the disjointed nature of this quite a bit. Next step for you should be walking through it, step-by-step, making sure that you've logically layed the groundwork from each point to the next. You're going to have to try to divorce yourself from the emotion of it. You have to double-check to make sure those things that seem OBVIOUS to you, are explained so that they seem obvious to the reader (especially in the context of politics, where "world-views" can vary so wildly).
Your attitude about the criticism is great. Keep it up. I can tell there is substance to come, you just need to concentrate on focusing it.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-28 13:21:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, fair enough, I don't think you mentioned anything that I didn't already try to clarify below and a lot of people took me the wrong way (which was obviously my fault since I wrote it). Thanks for the honesty.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-02-28 13:13:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. Review -
What are you getting at? Seems like a stupid question, right? Well, I'm not so sure.
You start out by saying what it is that you intend to address . . . namely, that criticizing one's own country in the U.S. has become thought of as treason. Okay. With you so far . . .
Tangent into how religion and political philosophy aren't SUPPORTABLE BY EVIDENCE.
Then you make assertions like this: "After all, not caring about people is what creates economic growth, right?"
Um. That sounds a little like economic philosophy. Is that like political philosophy or religion? Because I'm not seeing any supporting evidence.
Then you spin a few yarns about Madison wanting to look out for the rich (who don't care about anyone but themselves, of course). Then you talk about propaganda. Then you say ANYONE WHO CAN'T SEE THE OBVIOUS TRUTH IS AN IDIOT OR DELUDING THEMSELVES.
Let's be frank. You have barely made a point. You've offered a few historical tid-bits, but haven't connected them causally to your premis. Then you close with a HUGE generalization that will probably offend at least a few your reader (it did this one) as much as it leaves them confused.
I'm all for political, religious and nearly any other form of discourse, so long as it is done well, but in this case, the C.U.N.T "0" rating actually gets you a better one than you would have received, were I playing at "political dialogue." . . . and I'm NICE.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-28 12:43:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
-------------------------
Some Ann Coulter quotes:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
--------
Just to finally make it as clear as I can, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I realize that most sane people don't think this way, but Ann Coulter is not an unknown or even considered to be any more dangerous than, say, Eminem. There ARE a lot of people that believe this kind of bullshit and that's who I meant to address. I don't think any sane person can honestly say that they don't find the above quotes, which are two of many from some of the extreme Republican propaghandists like Coulter, EXTREMELY inappropriate no matter what their political beliefs. If you agree with the above quotes, then I guess my post is addressed to you and I make no apologies for "talking down" to you. That being said, please understand that I DO realize the majority of people aren't this bad. I guess I should have made that clearer in the original post.
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2005-02-28 12:21:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T Review:
America, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, is immune to criticism and criticism is tantamount to treason.
-------------------------------------------
Being that I live in America, I thought this statement was a little over the top (just my opinion of course). I found this post difficult to read, and had to reread it again. Having to do so made this piece feel more like a chore, then pleasurable reading. Whether that is the fault of my little brain, or the construction of this post I cannot say.
Now I will shut up and see what everybody else thought.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-28 11:24:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks again to all who reviewed, regardles of opinion.
Naery: When I wrote this, whether _I_ realized it or not, I was writing this from my own personal emotional standpoint. I'm certainly not among the better writers on Uber in terms of actual writing skill, but I still stand behind the principle of everything I said in this post. Obviously a lot of people thought I came across as dismissive and rude, and as I said, I can see that much more clearly now although it honestly wasn't my intention. I'm just naturally a self-righteous prick, I guess.
So, I AM guilty, in part, of exactly what I accuse my audience of; letting emotion take over my argument. The scary part is I think I knew that when I was writing it. When you feel strongly about something like this, it's difficult not to let some emotion seep into the writing, at least for me. As Shandy pointed out, it probably would have been better if I committed myself to either a totally emotional argument or a totally rational argument instead of trying to combine the two.
The lesson I've learned? When trying to convince others of my point of view, double-check to make sure I don't come across sounding like an arrogant prick. After re-reading it this many times, it's hard for me to NOT see the attitude everyone seems to get from it. As I said, it's not that I disagree with what I said in my post, but I now see many ways I could have made my point a little less confrontationally and, consequently, maybe turned a few less people off. Thanks to all who pointed this out to me.
As for Guernica, it doesn't really relate to the post at all, I just wanted didn't want to waste a perfectly good opportunity for an attachment (and I definitely didn't want to re-post the picture of Bush lecturing a bunch of sheep, the post was clearly condescending enough as is). I would love to actually see the original Guernica but, unfortunately, I have not.
Wow, this C.U.N.T. thing is actually coming in handy for me. It's much nicer to have someone explain to you WHY they didn't like your post instead of just -2 "No comment", -2 "You are a liberal pussy" or -2 "Kerry lost, get over it." Thanks again for the comments all, I found them quite helpful.
Submitted by Naery (user info) at 2005-02-28 08:53:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
BTW--I've actually seen Guernica, in person at a museum in Spain, and this photo does not do it justice. also, I'm not sure how it relates to your theme.
Submitted by Naery (user info) at 2005-02-28 08:50:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. Review:
I love this sentence: This post is addressed to anyone who agrees, whether they realize it or not, with the following statement: America, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, is immune to criticism and criticism is tantamount to treason.
And this one: I'm saying, in short, that nobody on here is an elected Republican or Democrat.
Here's my problem with this post: It is a logical nightmare. I only read it cursorily, and noticed two major fallacies: Begging the Question and Modus Tollens.
That being said, I think if you work on the logic, the ideas will either A)die, or B)strengthen.
Either one is an improvement over this mish-mash.
It started really strong, with the above-mentioned sentence, but then swiftly weakened.
Submitted by phuzzygish (user info) at 2005-02-28 07:10:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry. "You were writing about the way *see* things."
Submitted by phuzzygish (user info) at 2005-02-28 07:08:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
C.U.N.T. review (for what its worth)
- Not being American, I thought I wouldn't be able to relate to what you were writing, but you actually raised some really good, relevant points, some of which I actually agreed with.
- A litte less coherent than it could be, maybe structure it a bit more, read through afterwords and link the paragraphs a bit better.
- Throughout the piece it was opinionated, but good opinionated, you were writing about the way you was things. Then, you wrote 'You've all been duped" or something similar. I felt it was a little strong, compared to the tone of the rest of the piece.
Good job though. I don't usually like politicking, but I read it all the way through, and enjoyed it.
Submitted by Rawrg (user info) at 2005-02-28 02:38:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
TONIGHT SUCKS, +2S FOR ALL!!!
Submitted by Thor (user info) at 2005-02-28 01:35:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
just to balance up shlongy's nonsense
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-28 01:32:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This post is addressed to anyone who agrees, whether they realize it or not, with the following statement: America, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, is immune to criticism and criticism is tantamount to treason.
---
To be fair, I did say the post was addressed to a certain group of people and I wrote it in such a manner as to address a certain group of people. If I'm talking to those who fit the criteria I listed above, I see no harm in using a little sarcasm in my ramblings.
I admit that I can see myself coming across the way you describe but I certainly didn't intend to. I guess it's hard for me to hide my frustration with people on these kinds of issues.
Submitted by boneface (user info) at 2005-02-28 00:48:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the beginning was strong. Where you comment that politics and religion are touchy subjects because they are by nature easy to invalidate is a well thought statement.
What I didn't like was that it read as if you were lecturing your audience. The overall tone seemed as if you were speaking down to your audience and weren't asking them to think (or were assuming they were incapable of) critically about your statements.
I thought the historical blurbs were interesting, but I didn't like the content.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-27 19:32:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Points taken, thank you for the review. I think in my effort to make sure that I have as few grammatical errors as possible I often get too wordy.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-02-27 19:31:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I agree.
No, I agree that the whole "CUNT" thing is fucking stupid. But that's what you get from that self-appointed Uber "bad boy" Shandy the dickwad.
Submitted by wijormiclat (user info) at 2005-02-27 19:19:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
CUNT REVIEW:
"Money is power. Power is NOT benevolent by nature. History has shown that the foremost examples of concentrated power have not been gained by handing out candy to babies. Ironically, what I just said is often used to further justify people's twisted beliefs. For example, if one was to even suggest that there might be something wrong with the capitalist system, they would quickly be lectured about the selfish nature of man, thus necessitating such a system. If man is naturally selfish, then why would extremely wealthy and powerful people care about you? In fact, they're encouraged not to by the aforementioned argument. After all, not caring about people is what creates economic growth, right?"
Particularly in this paragraph, you use many words that aren't necessary for your argument such as "For example" "In fact" and "After all." Using excessive wording, especially at the beginning of your sentences tends to weaken your argument.
Avoid asking questions to your audience in a persuasive piece (ie. "After all, not caring about people is what creates economic growth, right?") because this also weakens your argument because even though it's a rhetorical question, it seems as if you're looking for your reader to verify this point.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-02-27 19:02:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
well, either that or make it *more* rambling and vague
you could go for impressions drifting together rather than logical build up
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:59:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks Shandy, I appreciate the feedback...
The original post was "topical" for the first paragraph or so (remember the "Nuke Japan/America" threads?), so I had to re-write it which I admittedly did a rushed job on. That being said, I also recognize that I need to work on making my writing more to a specific point as opposed to a kind of rambling. I've been lazy that way ever since I got my History degree 5 years ago.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:55:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and you chaps below, CUNT should only appear three times per week.
that's three times out of 1000 or whatever posts
but rest assured, it probably will die out.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:53:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
-Excellent title
-First sentence about criticism equalling treason seems misleading about what is to come: ie the piece didn't really seem to be about dissent per se
-I drifted a bit on the first few paras, but the the maddison historical stuff about protecting elites made me sit up and pay more attention. That's a very interesting bit of history.
-"Somehow, people have equated socially liberal ideas with economically liberal ideas. People can be liberal about all sorts of things, until it affects their pocketbook. Is CNN going to air a story about one of their sponsors getting caught laundering drug money? Probably not. Will they air a story praising gay marriage and then revel in their supposed tolerance? Probably." Very good point, and nice example. Not sure though about the use of the word 'liberal'. Liberal has lots of different connotations in differnet contexts, and is a tricky word.
In general, this seemed somehow quite deep but at the same time sort of vague and disordered. Maybe it would be more powerful without the first few paragraphs and if it just hammered and illistrated that basic reality of money and power. And perhaps connected directly with the title somewhere, and expanded the point about competition.
Alternatively, you could try and make it *more* fragmentary, maybe give it a slightly surreal setting and flavour, something with the confusion of a nightmare, but also horribly, starkly, real.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:45:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dash (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:41:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
this whole cunt thing is stupid and i hope it dies within the next week so i dont see C.U.N.T. everytime i come to ubersite.
Submitted by Dash (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:41:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
this whole cunt thing is stupid and i hope it dies within the next week so i dont see C.U.N.T. everytime i come to ubersite.