History DethroningMoment / CRACKED

* Tropers/DingJun: This troper found number 3 on this article [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-horrifying-childs-beauty-pageant-contestants_p2/ about children being forced to partake in beauty contests]] to be quite infuriating. Therein, the author makes fun of a contest jury's decision to make an autistic child "Miss Personality". Not only is this a very crude joke at the expense of autists in general, the author is also absolutely unwilling to acknowledge that anything might be wrong with such charming lines as "of all the kids in the pageant, you picked the autistic one for a personality prize? Was that a bizarre joke?" or "her daughter apparently just has a half loaf of shit for personality". Such distasteful jokes are cruel, immature, and reflect a general misconception of autism as something that turns people into unfeeling non-humans. It goes to show once again just how far many of Cracked's editors are willing to go to get a chuckle out of people, even if this means displaying a level of ugly contempt usually reserved for half-literate [=YouTube=]-commenters.

* PrincessTogezo: [[http://www.cracked.com/article_20158_the-6-most-baffling-video-game-spinoffs.html The 6 Most Baffling Video Game Spinoffs]] shows why you need to do research on the things you write about. For one thing, the article claims that, in ''VideoGame/PokemonChannel'', literally the only thing you do in the game is watch TV with Pikachu, completely ignoring the other things you can do in the game (exploring different areas, collecting trading cards, decorating your room, playing mini-games, etc.); however, I can somewhat forgive this on the grounds that ''Channel'' is a rather obscure spinoff of its [[Franchise/{{Pokemon}} parent franchise]]. What I can't forgive is the utter lack of research displayed when they talk about various ''Franchise/SonicTheHedgehog'' games. For one thing, of the three games discussed, only ''[[VideoGame/SonicStorybookSeries Sonic and the Black Knight]]'' and ''VideoGame/ShadowTheHedgehog'' could really be considered spinoffs; the third game, ''VideoGame/SonicUnleashed'', is typically counted as a main-series game. Second, the article claims that ''Black Knight'' was released first, followed by ''Unleashed'', and lastly ''Shadow'', when the actual order of the games' release is the other way around (''Shadow'' was released in 2005, ''Unleashed'' in 2008, and ''Black Knight'' in 2009). But what really shows that the author didn't do the research is this sentence: "[...]Sega decided to give their struggling mascot guns and a motorcycle and changed his name to that of a cool badass[...]" In other words, the author thought that Shadow and Sonic were one and the same, instead of two separate characters. Where do I begin...? For one thing, this game wasn't even Shadow's first appearance; he had prominent roles in two prior main-series games, specifically ''VideoGame/SonicAdventure2'' and ''VideoGame/SonicHeroes''. Also, and perhaps more importantly, all three games also featured Sonic himself as a character (non-playable in the case of ''Shadow'', but he was still there), and they all took great pains to establish that, despite their similarities, Sonic and Shadow are most definitely not the same entity. Any ''Sonic'' fan with even the slightest interest in the "[[UsefulNotes/SegaDreamcast Dreamcast]] and beyond" days could have at least pointed out the "Shadow is a revamped Sonic" error; in fact, the author somehow seemed to have completely ignored the existence of ''Sonic Adventure 2'', where the Hero plot is kicked off by the government and news media mistaking Shadow for Sonic, and where most, if not all, of the box art for the game's various releases has Sonic standing alongside his alleged revamp. To make a long story short, if you're going to write an article complaining about something, make sure you do your research on whatever you're complaining about, because if you [[CowboyBebopAtHisComputer get crucial details wrong]], people won't take you seriously.

* gunslingerofgilead: [[http://www.cracked.com/video_19280_popular-lyrics-re-examined-homophobic-gay-rights-song.html This]] video critiquing Macklemore's "Same Love" song is simply a joke. The video makes a point of saying that Macklemore is actually homophobic because he keeps mentioning he's straight while at the same time supporting gay rights, an argument which makes no sense since it seems to rely on the logic that people who are not part of a minority group cannot really support rights for minorities because they're just too clouded by their own... [[BuffySpeak majority-ness?]]. So to recap, two heterosexual writers (Cody Johnston and Abe Epperson) claim that a song, which has overwhelmingly been cherished by the LGBT community and become a gay anthem, is homophobic because it was [[LogicBomb written from the point of view of a heterosexual]]. This quickly becomes a case of HypocriticalHumor nonetheless, since Cracked has a track record of acting like "privileged" majorities are in no position to speak about minority rights, despite the fact that Cracked's writing and editorial staff is almost entirely comprised of straight white men.

* Tropers/PlatinumGlitchMint: [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/ 5 Ways Atheists Argue Their Cause (That Aren't Helping)]]. The biggest problem I have with the article mostly comes from how weirdly unfocused to the topic it seems to be. The article, when it is not blaming the outspoken "leaders" of atheism as mean people who are destroying the movement in the eyes of everyone else, it is oddly enough constantly bringing up the outspoken criticisms of modern feminism by the likes of UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins and WebVideo/TheAmazingAtheist. The writer cites some of The Amazing Atheist's videos claiming them to be wrong without addressing what he finds wrong with them, as well as criticizing TJ Kirk's intentional [[JerkAss jerk-like]] [[IntentionalAudienceReaction approach]] to his videos without addressing why it's bad he does it. The fact that The Amazing Atheist also doesn't talk much about atheism anymore is also criticized [[note]]though the writer seems to be more critical of the fact that TJ focuses on criticizing social issues mostly[[/note]], [[CriticalResearchFailure never mind the fact]] that TJ himself has addressed that he regrets the name of his Website/YouTube channel because he always wanted to discuss more that just atheism. The article also outright calls UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins insane simply because he made a statement using the fallacy of relative privation during the [[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/elevatorgate "ElevatorGate" debacle with Rebecca Watson]], and that he [[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/448240882710757376 tweeted one time about seeing two dogs engaging in a 69]]. The rest of the article isn't much different, as it continues to conflate popular atheism on the internet with [[StrawMisogynist evil woman-hating anti-feminism]], claiming that "atheism has become as bad at talking to girls as the boys at a junior high dance". The defensiveness of some internet atheists is also mocked by the writer, being conflated with simple religion-hating and Islamophobia. Atheists have always been a very unfairly hated and subjugated group throughout history and around the world, and the writer ignorantly assumes that simply being outspoken and loud about one's own atheistic views because of this hatred makes you a loudmouthed jerk. Buzz Feed of all sites is even cited as a source multiple times throughout the article, [[HypocriticalHumor the same Buzz Feed that]] [[http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-annoying-things-about-atheists#.xyA37wpw7 published a click bait article]] [[HollywoodAtheist about why atheists are annoying neck-bearded assholes who hate religious people and constantly complain on the internet about their atheism.]] Atheism criticisms aside, this article exemplifies how modern Cracked.com seems to think that any criticisms of modern feminism (or frankly anything social justice related that they agree with), no matter how rational or well natured the intentions are, [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong automatically makes you a woman hating monster who is simply ignorant of how feminism actually works.]]

* [=MorphinBrony=]: Our old friend JF Sargent strikes again with [[http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-5-most-insulting-defenses-nerd-racism/ "The 5 Most Insulting Defenses of Nerd Racism."]] This time, he's giving us a whiny AuthorTract about the InternetBackdraft against the RaceLift of Johnny Storm in Film/FantasticFour2015. It seems [[EverythingIsRacist Sargent has a very loose idea]] [[PoliticalCorrectnessGoneMad about the definition of racism.]] Not to mention quips like "We might as well make remake Roots with an all-white cast!" aren't very tasteful.

* @/AxMachina: [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-nintendo-will-save-us-from-awful-shooter-video-games/?wa_user1=4&wa_user2=Video+Games&wa_user3=blog&wa_user4=feature_module The 6 Problems With Third Person Shooters That Just Got Solved]] felt less like an actual article and more like an advertisement for {{VideoGame/Splatoon}}, with Luke [=McKinney=] praising the game and comparing it to Franchise/CallOfDuty ([[CriticalResearchFailure which is a first person shooter, mind you.]]) He says that one of the main reasons he bought the game was because it lacked voice chat, and therefore it was better than every other multiplayer game out there (you realize mute buttons exist, right?). But what really takes the cake is the first reason, where he says Splatoon single-handedly is saving the industry. Why? The only "reasons" he talked about was the fact that you could customize your character and you could play with children. [[SarcasmMode Gee, that should obviously make it so that every single other game must have customization and be able to be child-friendly.]] Not every multiplayer game needs customization, and not every game needs to be kid-friendly. This article has made me not want to even look at the game. [[SarcasmMode Great work, Luke.]]

** Tropers/DukeNukem4ever: This list is even more offensive towards people of former USSR (mostly Russians), the nation that arguably suffered the most during World War II (or at least during Eastern Front activities). In many Eastern regions World War II is considered a tragedy. As a Russian myself, I found the Cracked's decision to label 40's "the best decade" solely because of World War II is incredibly infuriating. If the World War II survivors would read this article, they would have sued the entire website for such selfish and twisted interpretation of war. The people who wrote this list got off pretty easily to say the best.

** [[Tropers/DukeNukem4ever]]: This list is even more offensive towards people of former USSR (mostly Russians), the nation that arguably suffered the most during World War II (or at least during Eastern Front activities). In many Eastern regions World War II is considered a tragedy. As a Russian myself, I found the Cracked's decision to label 40's "the best decade" solely because of World War II is incredibly infuriating. If the World War II survivors would read this article, they would have sued the entire website for such selfish and twisted interpretation of war. The people who wrote this list got off pretty easily to say the best.

* Tropers/CaptainTedium: My Dethroning Moment is the article "6 Secret Fuck Yous Lurking in Famous Pop Culture". The first entry on the list talked of how Tom [=DeFalco=] disliked the 1994 ''WesternAnimation/FantasticFour'' cartoon and made a potshot toward it by having Ant-Man insult the cartoon while watching it. My problem with the entry is that it talked of the ''Fantastic Four'' cartoon as if it was universally despised and said things like how the show would only appeal to three-year-olds. I can understand if whoever wrote this article wasn't a fan of the 1994 cartoon, but that still doesn't change how reprehensible and obnoxious it is to state your opinion on a show like it is an undisputed fact that everyone agrees with while making obtuse and biased assumptions on the people who don't share that viewpoint. The last time I checked, there were actually a lot of people who liked the 1994 cartoon, and insinuating that they're immature idiots for liking it comes off as beyond the pale.

* No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the [=DMoSs=] out loud.

* No ASSCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the [=DMoSs=] out loud.

* Tropers/CaptainTedium: My Dethroning Moment is the article "6 Secret Fuck Yous Lurking in Famous Pop Culture". The first entry on the list talked of how Tom [=DeFalco=] disliked the 1994 ''WesternAnimation/FantasticFour'' cartoon and made a potshot toward it by having Ant-Man insult the cartoon while watching it. My problem with the entry is that it talked of the ''Fantastic Four'' cartoon as if it was universally despised and said things like how the show would only appeal to three-year-olds. I can understand if whoever wrote this article wasn't a fan of the 1994 cartoon, but that still doesn't change how reprehensible and obnoxious it is to state your opinion on a show like it is an undisputed fact that everyone agrees with and making hasty generalizations on the people who don't share that viewpoint. The last time I checked, there were actually a lot of people who liked the 1994 cartoon, and insinuating that they're immature idiots for liking it comes off as beyond the pale.

* Tropers/CaptainTedium: My Dethroning Moment is the article "6 Secret Fuck Yous Lurking in Famous Pop Culture". The first entry on the list talked of how Tom [=DeFalco=] disliked the 1994 ''WesternAnimation/FantasticFour'' cartoon and made a potshot toward it by having Ant-Man insult the cartoon while watching it. My problem with the entry is that it talked of the ''Fantastic Four'' cartoon as if it was universally despised and said things like how the show would only appeal to three-year-olds. I can understand if whoever wrote this article wasn't a fan of the 1994 cartoon, but that still doesn't change how reprehensible and obnoxious it is to state your opinion on a show like it is universally agreed and making hasty generalizations on the people who don't share that viewpoint. The last time I checked, there were actually a lot of people who liked the 1994 cartoon, and insinuating that they're immature idiots for liking it comes off as beyond the pale.

* Sakubara: Much like [[WesternAnimation/MyLittlePonyFriendshipIsMagic Bronies]], Cracked has shown a dislike towards anime fans. While I officially stopped reading at the one where they insulted the [[TooSoon then-recently deceased]] Creator/RobinWilliams for being a fan of stuff like Anime/NeonGenesisEvangelion (they said that even those with body pillows consider it "an anime for losers" and [[ThisIsGonnaSuck that's only on the first page of the article]]), I have instead decided to give an entire article that insults anime fans and honestly comes across as kind of racist for its unfunny stereotypes about Japan as perverts that love sex and violence. I give you [[http://www.cracked.com/article_18655_9-beloved-characters-made-horrifying-by-japan.html 9 Beloved Characters Made Horrifying by Japan]], aka AllAnimeIsNaughtyTentacles: the Article. I tried to deconstruct it one by one, but honestly it was too physically painful to read. The main problem with the article is that while yes, anime can be pervy at times, the author comes across as a prude that stands on a soapbox to continue the trend of focusing more on being social justice warriors rather than being actually funny. Examples range from understandable like the one with world leaders like Creator/AdolfHitler made into a CastFullOfPrettyBoys, to "why is this considered horrifying?" like with [[WesternAnimation/TeenageMutantNinjaTurtles Mutant Turtles: Superman Legend]] and [[ComicBook/TheIncredibleHulk the Hulk manga]], to CriticalResearchFailure like with {{Anime/Hellsing}}, to straight up [[PrecisionFStrike "fuck you!"]] territory with the one about Anime/MiyukiChanInWonderland focusing more on the scantily clad versions of the GenderFlipped characters rather than the DoubleStandardRapeFemaleOnFemale where the page's quote is taken from, and implying that all cases of SexySantaDress are what Japanese people think Santa Claus is like ([[SarcasmMode because we totally have nothing like that in America]]). It doesn't help that when they use LightNovel/HaruhiSuzumiya as an example they accuse it of being porn [[ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch without watching a single episode]]. Overall, the entire article is Type-2 {{Eagleland}} smugness that not only insult anime fans, but Japan in general.

*** Morenohijazo: One could even argue whether he's just doing exactly the same thing, putting in his article tons of shit just to motivate readers... but then, he should have read the blog that talked about the scene and realized the reactions to the article would be the same that the film scene had. Anyway, the core idea is okay, that we can't expect good things to happen if we don't work for them - the tone and the conclusions are what ruin it. I can't add myself much else to what other entries here or [[http://abidesh.blogspot.com.es/2013/01/the-truth-about-six-harsh-truths.html these]] [[https://thewaronloneliness.com/2013/01/23/why-do-you-want-to-be-a-better-person/ blogs]] said, so I'll just say some things, all related to Wong's ability to take things out of context so that they seem to have a different meaning.
*** First, Wong said the aforementioned blog post he linked to was a critique of hipsters and how they lacked motivation to find a job. Well, actually, the blog post isn't like that: it talks about how hipsters aren't to blame (at least, not entirely) because they fell into the HardWorkFallacy that going through college would assure them a job in the related area, and criticizes people who sold them that notion - probably the blog author would ''precisely'' think of Wong's article as perpetuating said notion, because of his "work harder and you'll become a successful person, no matter what" message and praising college students as the most productive people.
*** Second, Wong quotes the Bible ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:19%E2%80%9320 Matthew 7:19–20]]) as a proof of his point, saying "Hey, even Jesus agrees with me". Again, he's taking it out of context: [[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV read the whole thing]], Jesus was talking about "false prophets". The whole thing is more about good people and bad people than about being productive, which again, goes against Wong's point.
*** Finally, regarding the "Glengarry Glen Ross" scene, Wong conveniently forgets to tell how the film ends. You would think that awesome motivating speech that Wong said "would program his alarm clock to play it for him every morning if he knew how" allowed the salesmen to become incredibly good salesmen, right? Well, actually, it failed spectacularly: the film ends up with them getting arrested, because being pressured to do something they couldn't do made them start to do stupid things. See, sometimes people don't improve, not because they lack the motivation, but because they genuinely don't know how to improve or they lack the means. If that's the case, merely telling them to get better without telling them how to do it or giving them the means won't help.

* [=MorphinBrony=]: I've removed my previous [=DMoS=] in place of a new one: [[http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1658-5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html 5 Ways We Misunderstand Pedophilia (That Makes it Worse)]]. Yes, [[NotMakingThisUpDisclaimer you read that right.]] Cracked had the audacity to make an article ''defending pedophiles.'' I think nothing more needs to be said.

* Tropers/CJCroen1393: I've been straying away from Cracked ever since they let [[PoliticalCorrectnessGoneMad political correctness go mad]], but I finally found one of these from them after finding a tiny but glaring sentence in their "4 signs that Film/JurassicWorld is going to be a comedy" article. Now, I can't guarantee that the movie's going to be as good as we all think it will be. For all I know, it'll completely dash our expectations and suck big time. And I can completely agree with their number 2 slot (that the people running the park are [[TooDumbToLive really stupid]]). But as a paleonut, what I can't forgive about this article is what they say about the [[StockDinosaursNonDinosaurs Mosasaurus]]: "After welcoming us with the most cartoonish-looking gate in Jurassic Park history, the first big dino-huzzah the Jurassic World trailer tosses us is a sequence wherein a great white shark is dangled over a Sea World-style arena to feed a ridiculous monster that comes exploding out of the water with all of the convincingly realistic computer effects of a direct-to-DVD Lake Placid sequel. The entire shot looks like one of those photographs you can take at the Natural History Museum that inserts a fake dinosaur background behind you and your stupid friends." Cracked, do you even [[CriticalResearchFailure know]] what a Mosasaurus is? If you had even a grade school education about dinosaurs you probably would! Heck, if the writer had any grade school kids, then all s/he would need to do is watch the trailer with said kids and ask "what dinosaur is that?" and the kid would probably answer them correctly. And maybe even point out that Mosasaurus wasn't even a dinosaur. Or, heck, maybe [[http://www.jurassicworld.com/dinosaurs/mosasaurus/ looked at the dang website]]. The worst part? Cracked has shown their research with prehistory before. What happened to satirical but well researched articles like "7 (Thankfully) Extinct Giant Versions of Modern Animals"? This part of this article sounds more like "We don't know what this animal is and are too lazy to do research so we'll just assume it's a fake monster made up for the movie".

*** But it's not just about these things either, it's all of these things, and what they say about the site now. Specifically, as Dan O'Brien himself pointed out in the number 4 entry, he hasn't played video games in so long he doesn't even know how to hold an XBox controller, yet he's forced to write about video games or he'll lose his job despite being one of the founding staff members of Cracked.com. You see, this is what Cracked is now. It's no longer a bunch of people enjoying themselves while writing hilarious articles about the things that they love. It's a business staffed by people who hate themselves and everything around them, whose sole purpose is to rake in as much filthy lucre as is physically possible. This is the reason for absolutely everything wrong with the site - the retardedly misinformed articles, the ego-driven mass perma-bannings of readers, even the anti-intellectual BS articles. It's all about the Benjamins now.

* [=MorphinBrony=]: Our old friend JF Sargent strikes again with [[http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-5-most-insulting-defenses-nerd-racism/ "The 5 Most Insulting Defenses of Nerd Racism."]] This time, he's giving us a whiny AuthorTract about the InternetBackdraft against the RaceLift of Johnny Storm in Film/FantasticFour2015. It seems [[EverythingIsRacist Sargent has a very loose idea]] [[PoliticalCorrectnessGoneMad about the definition of racism.]] Not to mention quips like "We might as well make remake Roots with an all-white cast!" aren't very tasteful.

* Tropers/PlatinumGlitchMint: [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/ 5 Ways Atheists Argue Their Cause (That Aren't Helping)]]. The biggest problem I have with the article mostly comes from how weirdly unfocused to the topic it seems to be. The article, when it is not blaming the outspoken "leaders" of atheism as mean people who are destroying the movement in the eyes of everyone else, it is oddly enough constantly bringing up the outspoken criticisms of modern feminism by the likes of UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins and TheAmazingAtheist. The writer cites some of TheAmazingAtheist's videos claiming them to be wrong without addressing what he finds wrong with them, as well as criticizing TJ Kirk's intentional [[JerkAss jerk-like]] [[IntentionalAudienceReaction approach]] to his videos without addressing why it's bad he does it. The fact that TheAmazingAtheist also doesn't talk much about atheism anymore is also criticized [[note]]though the writer seems to be more critical of the fact that TJ focuses on criticizing social issues mostly[[/note]], [[CriticalResearchFailure never mind the fact]] that TJ himself has addressed that he regrets the name of his Website/YouTube channel because he always wanted to discuss more that just atheism. The article also outright calls UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins insane simply because he made a statement using the fallacy of relative privation during the [[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/elevatorgate "ElevatorGate" debacle with Rebecca Watson]], and that he [[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/448240882710757376 tweeted one time about seeing two dogs engaging in a 69]]. The rest of the article isn't much different, as it continues to conflate popular atheism on the internet with [[StrawMisogynist evil woman-hating anti-feminism]], claiming that "atheism has become as bad at talking to girls as the boys at a junior high dance". The defensiveness of some internet atheists is also mocked by the writer, being conflated with simple religion-hating and Islamophobia. Atheists have always been a very unfairly hated and subjugated group throughout history and around the world, and the writer ignorantly assumes that simply being outspoken and loud about one's own atheistic views because of this hatred makes you a loudmouthed jerk. Buzz Feed of all sites is even cited as a source multiple times throughout the article, [[HypocriticalHumor the same Buzz Feed that]] [[http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-annoying-things-about-atheists#.xyA37wpw7 published a click bait article]] [[HollywoodAtheist about why atheists are annoying neck-bearded assholes who hate religious people and constantly complain on the internet about their atheism.]] Atheism criticisms aside, this article exemplifies how modern Cracked.com seems to think that any criticisms of modern feminism (or frankly anything social justice related that they agree with), no matter how rational or well natured the intentions are, [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong automatically makes you a woman hating monster who is simply ignorant of how feminism actually works.]]

** Vexer: Sargent got even worse in his Youtube video "Cracked is Anti-Gamer" where he spends 19 minutes rambling and coming up with bullshit excuses for his nonsensical opinions on games, most notably the notion that most popular games are violent, which is absolute nonsense.

* PurpleShirt: The 7 Commandments That All Video Games should obey. First off, it starts off with "All games should have multiplayer if they're on consoles"... and cites games made specifically for single player, like Shadowrun. Probably not a good idea to get your point. His point about Grand Theft Auto makes a lot more sense - seeing as the game advertises multiplayer but you have to be within arms length if you're playing with each other. However, the biggest one is when they say to hire some decent voice actors and brings up an example from Final Fantasy X. This example? The laughing scene. This is illustrated with a YouTube clip taken entirely out of context. When you take things out of context, it makes you look silly, yes, and RuleOfFunny is in effect... but for those in the know-how, it just makes you look like an uneducated moron. That's the kind of shit ''Series/XPlay'', ''WebAnimation/ZeroPunctuation'', and ''WebVideo/TheIrateGamer'' pull. I don't even like Final Fantasy X, and I can cite better examples of "poor voice acting" in the game (Rikku's LipLock, Seymour sounding like he's high on drugs). He also says the game took $32 million to make and "Give some of that to the story writing department". Uhm... when you're talking about actors and mention saying the writers need more money... then you're just going the other way. The point may have been "Hire some decent actors to deliver those lines" but when you blame the writers on what you perceive to be poor acting, you just come off as incredibly indecisive.

* Tropers/DingJun: This troper found number 3 on this article [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-horrifying-childs-beauty-pageant-contestants_p2/ about children being forced to partake in beauty contests]] to be quite infuriating. Therein, the author makes fun of a contest jury's decision to make an autistic child "Miss Personality". Not only is this a very crude joke at the expense of autists in general, the author is also absolutely unwilling to acknowledge that anything might be wrong with such charming lines as "of all the kids in the pageant, you picked the autistic one for a personality prize? Was that a bizarre joke?" or "her daughter apparently just has a half loaf of shit for personality". Such distasteful jokes are cruel, immature, and reflect a general misconception of autism as something that turns people into unfeeling non-humans. It goes to show once again just how far many of Cracked's editors are willing to go to get a chuckle out of people, even if this means displaying a level of ugly contempt usually reserved for half-literate Youtube-commenters.

* Tropers/PlatinumGlitchMint: [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/ 5 Ways Atheists Argue Their Cause (That Aren't Helping)]]. The biggest problem I have with the article mostly comes from how weirdly unfocused to the topic it seems to be. The article, when it is not blaming the outspoken "leaders" of atheism as mean people who are destroying the movement in the eyes of everyone else, it is oddly enough constantly bringing up the outspoken criticisms of modern feminism by the likes of UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins and TheAmazingAtheist. The writer cites some of TheAmazingAtheist's videos claiming them to be wrong without addressing what he finds wrong with them, as well as criticizing TJ Kirk's intentional [[JerkAss jerk-like]] [[IntentionalAudienceReaction approach]] to his videos without addressing why it's bad he does it. The fact that TheAmazingAtheist also doesn't talk much about atheism anymore is also criticized [[note]]though the writer seems to be more critical of the fact that TJ focuses on criticizing social issues mostly[[/note]], [[CriticalResearchFailure never mind the fact]] that TJ himself has addressed that he regrets the name of his YouTube channel because he always wanted to discuss more that just atheism. The article also outright calls UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins insane simply because he made a statement using the fallacy of relative privation during the [[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/elevatorgate "ElevatorGate" debacle with Rebecca Watson]], and that he [[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/448240882710757376 tweeted one time about seeing two dogs engaging in a 69]]. The rest of the article isn't much different, as it continues to conflate popular atheism on the internet with [[StrawMisogynist evil woman-hating anti-feminism]], claiming that "atheism has become as bad at talking to girls as the boys at a junior high dance". The defensiveness of some internet atheists is also mocked by the writer, being conflated with simple religion-hating and Islamophobia. Atheists have always been a very unfairly hated and subjugated group throughout history and around the world, and the writer ignorantly assumes that simply being outspoken and loud about one's own atheistic views because of this hatred makes you a loudmouthed jerk. Buzz Feed of all sites is even cited as a source multiple times throughout the article, [[HypocriticalHumor the same Buzz Feed that]] [[http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-annoying-things-about-atheists#.xyA37wpw7 published a click bait article]] [[HollywoodAtheist about why atheists are annoying neck-bearded assholes who hate religious people and constantly complain on the internet about their atheism.]] Atheism criticisms aside, this article exemplifies how modern Cracked.com seems to think that any criticisms of modern feminism (or frankly anything social justice related that they agree with), no matter how rational or well natured the intentions are, [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong automatically makes you a woman hating monster who is simply ignorant of how feminism actually works.]]

* {{Baeraad555}}: [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-ugly-lessons-hiding-in-every-superhero-movie_p2/#ixzz37UH3Lu8a This article]] makes me remember why I promised I'd never click on a ''Cracked'' link again. Most of it is just par for the course in its phony hand-wringing about how superhero movies are shock full of UnfortunateImplications - annoying, but not unexpected. What actually made me see red was the ending, where David Wong launches a pre-emptive TakeThatCritics: "But ask yourself: Why is there that knee-jerk rejection of any effort to 'overthink' pop culture? Why would you ever be afraid that looking too hard at something will ruin it?" Oh, for crying out loud. It's called WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief, Wong! We ''know'' that superhero movies are stupid! We ''know'' that nothing in them would work in real life! But in order to relax and have fun, you need to [[BellisariosMaxim shut off your brain a bit.]] The reason why people get mad at you isn't because you've "struck a nerve" or whatever it is you're telling yourself, it's because you're pissing all over people's harmless escapism and accusing them of secretly believing awful things because they sit back and pretend for a few hours that the world is big and simple and that there is such a thing as good guys and bad guys and in the end the former will beat the latter - before they have to go back out into the real world, which is [[GrayAndGreyMorality grimy and complicated]] and [[CrapsackWorld frequently depressing.]] And I'm honestly not sure whether you're [[KnowNothingKnowItAll too stupid to understand that,]] or if you do understand it and just [[{{Troll}} keep pretending not to]] so you can keep pumping out clickbait articles.

* Tropers/MelancholyUtopia: [[http://www.cracked.com/article_22594_5-awful-lessons-disney-teaches-you-about-relationships.html 5 Awful Lessons Disney Teaches You About Relationships]] certainly deserves a huge spot on this list. First of all, the subject matter has been done to death. For crying out loud, there's a reason the phrase "Real life ain't no Disney movie" gets thrown around a lot. But more to the specific problems of the article: 1) It flat-out lies about information explicitly given in the movies proper. It claims for instance that all women over 30 years old are evil (''Disney/SleepingBeauty'' and ''Disney/{{Cinderella}}'', two of the first films in the Disney animated canon, say otherwise), that Ursula in ''Disney/TheLittleMermaid'' is jealous of Ariel's looks (she isn't), that Jasmine in ''Disney/{{Aladdin}}'' doesn't flinch when finding out Aladdin is poor (when she gets clearly mad at him, but only for lying to her), that a whirlwind romance fixes all past traumas, giving examples like ''Disney/TheLionKing'' and ''Disney/{{Frozen}}'' (completely missing the point that both movies' main plot is resolving the conflict of the kingdoms' current environmental state, and both heirs took responsibility to fix it. Neither movie claimed they were completely healed from their trauma because of any romance, but that they were in the PROCESS of healing when both decided to move on and not run away from any responsibility. Simba's romance with Nala was a bonus, not what drove him to change. In addition, the author missed the point of the moral of ''Frozen'', which was about putting value on love between siblings. Elsa, who wasn't romantically active at all, has the most trauma of her and her sister, who WAS romantically active). The allegations the author makes about this falls so flat on its face it's breaking bones. 2) The ''Disney/BeautyAndTheBeast'' example deserves its own point here, since it annoyed me the most. The article says the movie encourages StockholmSyndrome. [[SarcasmMode Yeah, like we haven't heard that one before.]] But at least when others say it, they're joking. This article, on the other hand, is dead serious. CriticalResearchFailure doesn't begin to cover anything of this. All of these facts are, I assure you, explicitly shown in the movie: Beast scares Belle when she meddled with things that weren't hers, and she tries to run away because he scared her. When she's out in the woods getting attacked by wolves, she gets saved just barely by Beast. Realizing he has potential to be a good person because of his rescue, she tends to his wounds and scolds him, saying that he should start to behave if he would wish for others to like and respect him without fear involved. Which he does, and it's when he gets nicer and better behaved she starts to fall for him. Then, realizing he loves her, lets her go to see her sick father. It wasn't subtext, it was direct. StockholmSyndrome is when the victim has positive feelings towards the kidnapper's abusive/controllable nature, which Belle did not have. It's also when the victim has negative feelings towards family members, which Belle neither had as she seeked out her father when she found out he was sick. And also, the most damning evidence: "Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment" is also a symptom, which Belle doesn't have either, as she leaves when told she can. Sorry about the rant, but this part upset me so much I just couldn't have the author speak of StockholmSyndrome like she knows what it is, especially when it's obvious she doesn't. 3) Several commentators below claim that when they watched the movies as a kid, all they saw was an evil antagonist and the good protagonist defeating him/her and living happily ever after with their one true love. Kids aren't stupid. They know what they see is a fairytale and shouldn't be taken too much at face value, and if they do, the parents will assure them otherwise. When the latter kids grow up, they will be more experienced and aware of how the world works, and in the process, realize that those fairytales are just that: fairytales. No one is going to try to imitate what happens in those movies when they're adults. This article is so ignorant of how the human mind works, both of kids as of that of adults. 4) The author makes such a big deal out of the female protagonists marrying young, ignoring the fact that during the times the movies are set, it was customary to marry young. Aurora, Ariel and [[Disney/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame Esmeralda]], all 16, live in what looks like the medieval times to the 19th century when they marry. So does [[Disney/SnowWhite Snow White]], who's 14. Most of the other protagonists we either don't get a clear confirmation they marry too young ([[Disney/{{Mulan}} Mulan]], Jasmine and [[Disney/{{Pocahontas}} Pocahontas]]) or they're past the age of legal marriage ([[Disney/ThePrincessAndTheFrog Tiana]], [[Disney/{{Tangled}} Rapunzel]], Cinderella, Belle, Anna, [[Disney/{{Tarzan}} Jane]] and [[Disney/{{Hercules}} Meg]].) These are just a few examples. Also, there are countries in the world that still legalize underage marriage, so not only is the statement ignorant, but disrespectful to those countries' laws as well. Thoroughly study the subject at hand before confidently making predications that are false, thank you very much. This whole article boils down to, not only a complete mess, but also outright lying about content and missing the points of all respective movies in their entirety. To some, this may be a mosquite bite. To others, like me, it was annoying and offensive seeing the utterly poor research the lazy author has clearly executed.

*** Morenohijazo: One could even argue whether he's just doing exactly the same thing, putting in his article tons of shit just to motivate readers... but then, he should have read the blog that talked about the scene and realized the reactions to the article would be the same that the film scene had. Anyway, the core idea is okay, that we can't expect good things to happen if we don't work for them - the tone and the conclusions are what ruin it. I can't add myself much else to what other entries here or [[http://abidesh.blogspot.com.es/2013/01/the-truth-about-six-harsh-truths.html this blog]] said, so I'll just say two things, both related to Wong's ability to take things out of context so that they seem to have a different meaning. First, Wong said the aforementioned blog post he linked to was a critique of hipsters and how they lacked motivation to find a job. Well, actually, the blog post isn't like that: it talks about how hipsters aren't to blame (at least, not entirely) because they fell into the HardWorkFallacy that going through college would assure them a job in the related area, and criticizes people who sold them that notion - probably the blog author would ''precisely'' think of Wong's article as perpetuating said notion, because of his "work harder and you'll become a successful person, no matter what" message and praising college students as the most productive people. Second, Wong quotes the Bible ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:19%E2%80%9320 Matthew 7:19–20]]) as a proof of his point, saying "Hey, even Jesus agrees with me". Again, he's taking it out of context: [[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV read the whole thing]], Jesus was talking about "false prophets". The whole thing is more about good people and bad people than about being productive, which again, goes against Wong's point.

*** ImpudentInfidel That part is especially odd since he directly links to the [[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html blog post]] he got the interpretation from... and his interpretation is completely different (the blog thought the character was completely full of shit and being deliberately annoying to motivate the salesmen).