History DethroningMoment / Cracked

* Tropers/CJCroen1393: I've been straying away from Cracked ever since they let [[PoliticalCorrectnessIsEvil 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 [[UsefulNotes/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 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".

* MathWizardBoy: "6 Reasons it is Impossible to Quit VideoGame/WorldOfWarcraft" was a good article up until reason #1. Keep in mind, up until this point, the format is a question questioning something about the game that outsiders might look at and think WTF. i.e., "How can you play the same game for eight years without getting tired of it?", and the author explains that the developers are constantly adding new stuff to the game. So for #1, the question is "[the expansion pack ''Mists of Pandaria''] looks incredibly retarded. Does playing it mean you are retarded?" The author's short answer is yes. The long answer involves criticizing the [=WoW=] community (because the panda was the most requested idea from the players), calling the idea "buttfuck stupid", and saying that "Anyone who buys the game so that they can pretend to be [Po from] ''WesternAnimation/KungFuPanda'' isn't old enough to play video games in the first place". Really? This is an article about why it's impossible to quit [=WoW=], and the "number one" reason why is because an expansion looks retarded and anyone who plays it is too?.

* 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/SonicAndTheBlackKnight'' and ''VideoGame/ShadowTheHedgehog'' could really be considered spin-offs; 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.

* 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 (''WesternAnimation/SleepingBeauty'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{Cinderella}}'', two of the first films in the Disney animated canon, say otherwise), that Ursula in ''WesternAnimation/{{The Little Mermaid|1989}}'' is jealous of Ariel's looks (she isn't), that Jasmine in ''WesternAnimation/{{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 ''WesternAnimation/{{The Lion King|1994}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{Frozen|2013}}'' (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 ''WesternAnimation/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. Critical Research Failure 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 that 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 kids, 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 [[WesternAnimation/TheHunchbackOfNotreDameDisney Esmeralda]], all 16, live in what looks like the medieval times to the 19th century when they marry. So does [[WesternAnimation/SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs Snow White]], who's 14. Most of the other protagonists we either don't get a clear confirmation they marry too young ([[WesternAnimation/{{Mulan}} Mulan]], Jasmine and [[WesternAnimation/{{Pocahontas}} Pocahontas]]) or they're past the age of legal marriage ([[WesternAnimation/ThePrincessAndTheFrog Tiana]], [[WesternAnimation/{{Tangled}} Rapunzel]], Cinderella, Belle, Anna, [[WesternAnimation/{{Tarzan}} Jane]] and [[WesternAnimation/{{Hercules}} Meg]].) These are just a few examples. Also, there are countries in the world that still legalize underage marriage, so the statement is also completely ignorant. 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.

* Tropers/InfinityLeague: David Wong's late 2016 article "How Half of America Lost its F**king Mind" is an attempt at explaining to the mainstream why rural, working-class voters were so staunchly supporting Donald Trump, and while he made some good points about the horrific living conditions faced by impoverished Americans, the article overall came across as a {{wangst}}y PropagandaPiece validating the right-wing persecution complex. He starts off by claiming that rural American voters feel disenfranchised, explaining this by showing the infamous electoral map of counties that vote for either Republicans or Democrats and talking about how unfair it is that the "blue" areas' votes count more than red areas do. What he fails to mention is that those "blue islands in a sea of red" have vastly higher populations than the surrounding red areas. [[https://www.core77.com/posts/90771/A-Great-Example-of-Better-Data-Visualization-This-Voting-Map-GIF Land doesn't vote; people do]]. Furthermore, he claims that rural Americans are underrepresented in media and only used as punchlines, which is also untrue; not only are straight, white, Christian men vastly overrepresented in pop culture (usually as a means to appeal to rural viewers) but American news media has always framed white rural America as being more "real" than their urban and multiracial counterparts. From there, Wong spends the rest of the article adamantly denying that there is any racism, religious fundamentalism, or problematic beliefs at all among working-class Trump supporters, claiming that they're all blameless angels who were forced to line up behind Trump out of economic desperation; the problem with that claim is, despite Trump's populist talking points, he hadn't actually offered to do anything to improve the lives of the lower classes, instead siding with the same corporate establishment that caused that mass wealth inequality in the first place (which is why a solid majority of Trump supporters were actually upper middle class or higher.) To say that they only reluctantly went along with Trump's toxic messages is to ignore the decades of history showing rural whites enthusiastically voting for candidates with bigoted rhetoric and oppressive policies. While Wong mentions that these people were led astray by right-wing propaganda telling them to respond to social progress with anger and fear, at no point does he think to blame the fear mongers spreading that propaganda. No, according to him, it's all the liberals' fault. Throughout the rest of the article, he closed-mindedly characterizes left-wingers as pampered "[[YouKeepUsingThatWord elitists]]" who condescend to the working class by... pointing out when they're wrong about things and having sympathy for the people who are hurt by the policies they overwhelmingly support. No joke; to hear him tell it, every liberal's immediate response to a rural voter complaining about abject poverty is to sneeringly and baselessly accuse him of racism before going out of their way to screw those voters over. This is blatantly false for two reasons: first, genuine leftists overwhelmingly support socialist economic policies that would improve the lives of working class voters; second, accusations of bigotry don't just fall out of the sky. It's not like rural voters have done nothing to dispel the reputation they've built up over the last 50+ years before the article came out. Wong describes the struggles of the white working class at length while glossing over (or outright ignoring) the suffering other groups face (largely because of, again, policies that rural voters supported,) and he comes dangerously close to saying that working-class whites are justified in taking their problems out on minorities because they get more sympathy from "those liberal elitists." After repeating "liberal elitists bad" over and over again for the rest of the article, Wong finishes things off by bizarrely claiming that people who hate Trump because they think he's a bad person are hypocrites for being fans of Film/IronMan and Series/BreakingBad and late night talk shows. Setting aside how inherently fallacious it is to insinuate that the other side being guilty of a double standard suddenly absolves your side of all wrongdoing, there are numerous problems with his assertions. One, despite the ExpospeakGag he makes where he sounds like he's describing Trump but turns out to have actually been describing Tony Stark all along, Stark and Trump have nothing in common aside from being billionaires; Stark is the opposite of Trump in basically every other way that counts (and Wong accuses Stark of being a womanizer, seemingly not realizing that there's a world of difference between that and what Trump has been accused of.) Second, ignoring the MisaimedFandom, fans of Walter White do not see him as the hero; they know he's the villain here, and while his actions are interesting as a character study and dramatic story, none of the viewers condone his actions and they certainly don't think he'd make a good President. Third, with regards to late-night comedians, he points out that one of them (who had retired by the time this article was written) was accused of sexual misconduct as if that somehow means all late night hosts are comparable to Trump because they make off-color jokes. Here's the difference: late-night hosts' jokes are reserved for authority figures who they hold as corrupt, incompetent, and malicious. They're punching up; they're challenging authority; they're speaking truth to power. Throughout his 2016 campaign, Trump was the opposite: punching down against people who were already oppressed and marginalized (not to mention that the things Trump got in trouble for saying were his policies and rhetoric that affect real people, while late-night hosts' jokes were just that: jokes.) He defends rural support of Trump as nothing more than harmless protest against the establishment, a "brick through the window," but he fails to even consider what would happen when Trump actually won. Oops. In closing, David Wong comes across as exactly the type of "elitist" he complains about, being condescending, unempathetic, and quick to resort to sweeping generalizations.

* Tropers/TommyR01D: [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-universally-hated-things-that-are-somehow-still-popular/ "4 Universally Hated Things That Are Somehow Still Popular"]] lists Axe (or Lynx) body spray. The article doesn't really discuss Axe itself so much as the people who use it and the marketing behind it. Specifically, Cracked reckons that the commercial only worked because it was marketed at teenage boys, who are "non-complex"... and "naive" and don't bathe regularly. Those are the kindest descriptions the article gives. The entire final paragraph -plus about a third of the text before it- of this section is just a list of insults levelled at every male between the ages of 13 and 20, ranging from mildly irritating to downright horrible. Teens have already been treated as AcceptableTargets by Cracked [[note]]Often to the point where they can't be mentioned without an automatic stream of mockery[[/note]], but this is taking it up to eleven.

* Tropers/MewLettuceRush I have long not read Cracked anywhere near as much due to their turning into a [[PoliticalCorrectnessIsEvil SJW mouthpiece]] but my Dethroning Moment had to be the article “How a Pop Band Tricked Nine Million Americans into Becoming Nazis”. The title alone is pure clickbait as is the pure reaching of all the examples (someone in a video having a star bracelet does not mean they are promoting Nazism! It didn’t even look like the Star of David!) Yes, Ace of Base’s founder was part of a Nazi band and Sweden is known for being rather anti-Semitic, but those examples had so little proof, it was hard to take seriously. The kicker is they literally [[GodwinsLaw compared a potential Donald Trump presidency to Nazi fucking Germany]]. What the fuck?! Although Donald Trump is a complete asshole, he is nowhere near the level of a complete genocidal monster who murdered eleven million people! It makes you wonder how anyone takes Cracked seriously anymore!

* 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 ''VideoGame/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 spin-offs; 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.

** Tropers/Reviewgamesh: [=McKinney=] doesn't seem to have a grasp on the fact that the games are quite aware of their Camp factor whereas the movies play all of their tropes completely straight. His opinions on the characters- Leon, unlikable, really?- also make it look like he's just looking for something to bitch about. The game characters grab the IdiotBall and run with it sometimes, but that absolutely pales to what happens anytime Alice steps within 10 feet of a character from the games in one of the films.

* Tropers/darkrage6: For me, it was Ricardo Rivera's "[[http://www.cracked.com/article_20487_the-5-most-hilarious-actor-meltdowns-behind-famous-movies.html 5 Hilarious Actor Meltdowns Behind Famous Movies]]" (which really weren't hilarious, if you ask me). First off, including Lindsay Lohan's antics on the set of ''The Canyons'' when there were much better choices for the list that didn't get included (like Martin Sheen's breakdown while filming ''Apocalypse Now'') but the worst part was the one picture of Lindsay's mughots with a caption that calls her a "ridiculous fucking mess of a human." OK, I'm used to seeing jokes about Lindsay on the site and I know she's made plenty of mistakes and people have valid reasons for not liking her, but that caption truly crossed the line as it wasn't a joke, it was just a cruel and despicable statement (and unfortunately, most of the people in the comments section are making equally disgusting statements about her) that made Ricardo sound like a total dickhead; considering that former child star Mara Wilson's article mentioned how insulting celebrities doesn't make you a better person (or something like that), you'd think that Rivera would've been more respectful.\\

* Tropers/Levitator: [[https://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_2587_10-wario-crossovers-fans-have-been-clamoring-for/ Worst Case Wario Scenarios IRL]]. This article is just Wario being badly photoshoped into random movies, games, show, political campaigns...and a fleshlight?! Cracked doesn't usually go for this "lolrandom" humor, but here we are. The article was published just as the corona virus was heating up, and we really needed something nice and funny. Instead, we got this shit. I always thought people complaining about the death of Cracked were being petty, but this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

* Tropes/Darksteel: For me it would have to be Mark Hill's 2021 article "Why Is Everyone Angry About Six Days in Fallujah?" which unlike most of Hill's articles, seems to have no real clear point beyond "gamers are whiny manchildren and these game devs are EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL for making a game about a real life event in the Iraq war!", it's just a long rambling asinine article that suffers big time from "word vomit" (writing a lot without actually saying much of anything at all) and just regurgitates a bunch of bullshit stereotypes about gamers (the headline alone is clickbaity bullshit, as having problems with bad criticisms of video games that aren't even out yet is not remotely the same thing as "complaining about people taking them seriously"). Like how the same people that spoke out against the false notion that violent video games cause real life violence are the same people complaining about people criticizing the idea of the game, which is not remotely true and an overly broad generalization. Hill also spends a ridiculous amount of time cherry-picking the worst quotes from people back in 2009 and on Twitter and conveniently ignoring the many rational comments about the game in order to further his own narrative that gamers are morons. This article also suffers from Critical Research Failure, with Mark falsely claiming that ''VideoGame/CallOfDuty'' attempted to "rewrite" the Iranian hostage crisis and the "Highway of death" which is blatantly untrue, the franchise didn't try to do either of those things, the latter mission in ''VideoGame/CallOfDutyModernWarfare2019'' just happened to share a name with the real-life event, there's no real hard evidence that it was meant to be a rewrite of the incident as the actual mission has almost nothing in common with the real-life incident. Mark also acts like Creator/RogerEbert throughout as he almost seems to have an outright disdain for gaming as a whole, even outright claiming games "deserved to get the short end of the stick" and outright lied about ''VideoGame/ModernWarfare'' not being remotely anti-war (guess he forgot about the nuke sequence) and he claims that Six Days in Fallujah is going to be "nothing but propaganda" and is "disrespectful" failing to mention that actual soldiers that were in Fallujah worked on the game and that the devs said that you will spend a portion of the game playing as a civilian trying to help his family escape from the violence. Worst of all he assumes EVERY single person that's interested in this game is an alt-right troll who does not actually care about the content of the game itself and are only talking about it to piss certain people off, while that might be true for some people championing the game there are far more people that are legitimately interested in this game who were upset by Konami cancelling it due to them being complete and utter cowards and are excited to see it finally getting a second-chance after so long having been cancelled. Mark also does not even consider the fact that the devs are not serious when they say their game is "not political" when they obviously don't mean that, they are clearly saying that for two reasons-because company employees will get death threats if they get even the faintest whiff of a game being "political" (most notably alt-right trolls accused Ubisoft of being "racist against whites" when ''VideoGame/FarCry5'' had all white villains) and because being too political is precisely what got the game cancelled back in 2009 so they are no doubt keen to avoid that happening again. All this is not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms of this game to be had, but this article does a piss-poor job of getting any of them across, coming off more as badly worded and researched flame-bait that sounds like it was written by Jack Thompson himself for how much contempt it seems to have for gamers as a whole (or at least anyone who dares to not agree with Mark's own asinine opinions). I was hoping with J.F. Sargent finally getting fired that Cracked's anti-gamer nonsense would stop, but from this article it sounds like Hill is every bit as ignorant about gaming as a whole.

* 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 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 UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler made into a CastFullOfPrettyBoys, to "why is this considered horrifying?" like with [[WesternAnimation/TeenageMutantNinjaTurtles1987 Mutant Turtles: Superman Legend]] and [[ComicBook/TheIncredibleHulk the Hulk manga]], to Critical Research Failure like with {{Anime/Hellsing}}, to straight up "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.

* Tropers/KenyaStarflight: I find I have to eliminate my last entry here (griping about a cooking-related article because the author intentionally botched the recipes so he could complain about them) because as annoying as it was, it didn't end my readership of Cracked. No, it was the [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/white-people-hobbies-that-confuse-rest-world/ 9 Lame Hobbies White People Like (For Some Reason)]] article. Cracked has done articles like this before that mock certain activities and claim there's no way people legitimately enjoy them, but this article is somehow ten times worse. Not just because of the [[UnfortunateImplications implied racism]] in the title (racism against white people is still racism, Cracked), but because it has such a snobbish, uptight, self-righteous tone to it. The "upcycling" bashing in particular is annoying, as the article claims that "upcycling" -- taking old items like furniture and refurbishing them into something new and useful -- is wasteful because it deprives poor people of cheap goods. Aren't there enough old and used items around to ensure that both "upcyclers" and people without a lot of cash can use them? Cracked has annoyed me in the past, yet I kept reading because I found it funny and weirdly informative; this article, however, struck so much of a nerve that I abandoned the site entirely and find I don't miss it.

** If the majority of gamers are women, wouldn't it stand to reason the industry is already catering to them? Otherwise there wouldn't be many.

* Firelink: Sorry to disappoint the poster above, here comes JF Sargent again and the article that caused me to abandon the site permanently: [[http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-critics-political-correctness-have-it-backwards_p2/ Six Ways Critics of Political Correctness Have It Backwards]]. More slacktivist clickbait, poorly researched and with questionable logic. One item that stands out is his claim that the majority of video game players are female and that the industry should cater more for them. That's a fair sentiment and women are likely underrepresented in mainstream games. However, it didn't go into any detail on who was buying what (console gaming, mobile gaming etc) and quickly devolved into a rant about mainstream games. He even fits in more whining about the confederate flag. Personally, I don't agree with what that flag represents, but I'd always fight for your right to display it and disagree with me. Sargent comes across as a parody of hyper-sensitive slacktivist students, and this for me was the site's dethroning moment of suck.

* 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 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 UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler made into a CastFullOfPrettyBoys, to "why is this considered horrifying?" like with [[WesternAnimation/TeenageMutantNinjaTurtles1987 Mutant Turtles: Superman Legend]] and [[ComicBook/TheIncredibleHulk the Hulk manga]], to Critical Research Failure 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.

* Tropers/{{Guest1001}}: "The 5 Most Ridiculously Sexist Superhero Costumes" was bad enough, ending a perfectly good list with a whiny, hypocritical AuthorTract aimed at the argument that men are drawn just as unrealistically as women. But what really drove me away was the follow-up: "The 8 Stupidest Defenses Against Accusations Of Sexism", where he cherry-picked the worst comments (or single sentences from otherwise fine comments) and, instead of coming up with intelligent counter-arguments, instead he has [[DearNegativeReader decided to call the readers virgins]] for disagreeing with him. He even went so far as to say that anyone who complained about misandry was "the biggest asshole on the planet" and automatically misogynistic. Somehow, you can't imagine anyone saying that when someone criticizes a misogynistic work, can you? It was a huge combination of completely missing the point and CriticalResearchFailure.
* @/{{Animeking1108}} [[http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/6-pathetic-attempts-by-corporations-to-create-superhero/ 6 Pathetic Attempts by Corporations to Create a Superhero]] was going good until the number 1 entry was ''Anime/TigerAndBunny.'' It seems that they haven't actually watched an episode and automatically assumed that it's nothing but product placement. This is why Cracked needs writers who actually watch anime. It seems that most of their articles relating to anime are a complete CriticalResearchFailure.

Also, there's some CriticalResearchFailure when the article says that ''The Canyons'' was rejected from every film festival (actually, only two, and the execs at one of them got in trouble for making unprofessional comments about the film) when in fact, the film was accepted for a showing at the Venice Film Festival in August (the news had been out for a few weeks so there's no excuse for him not mentioning it). That just proves that Ricardo is a lazy and incredibly shitty writer who doesn't belong on Cracked. Cheese and Wong, for all the dickish things they've said, have at least written good articles, something I definitely cannot say about Rivera.

* Tropers/CJCroen1393: I've been straying away from Cracked ever since they let [[PoliticalCorrectnessIsEvil 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 [[UsefulNotes/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".

* 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]] [[IntendedAudienceReaction approach]] to his videos without addressing why it's bad that 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. Buzzfeed, of all sites, is even cited as a source multiple times throughout the article, [[HypocriticalHumor the same BuzzFeed that]] [[http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-annoying-things-about-atheists#.xyA37wpw7 published a clickbait 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.]]

* @/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/Splatoon1'', with Luke [=McKinney=] praising the game and comparing it to ''VideoGame/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'' is single-handedly 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/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 (''WesternAnimation/SleepingBeauty'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{Cinderella}}'', two of the first films in the Disney animated canon, say otherwise), that Ursula in ''WesternAnimation/{{The Little Mermaid|1989}}'' is jealous of Ariel's looks (she isn't), that Jasmine in ''WesternAnimation/{{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 ''WesternAnimation/{{The Lion King|1994}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{Frozen|2013}}'' (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 ''WesternAnimation/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 that 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 kids, 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 [[WesternAnimation/TheHunchbackOfNotreDameDisney Esmeralda]], all 16, live in what looks like the medieval times to the 19th century when they marry. So does [[WesternAnimation/SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs Snow White]], who's 14. Most of the other protagonists we either don't get a clear confirmation they marry too young ([[WesternAnimation/{{Mulan}} Mulan]], Jasmine and [[WesternAnimation/{{Pocahontas}} Pocahontas]]) or they're past the age of legal marriage ([[WesternAnimation/ThePrincessAndTheFrog Tiana]], [[WesternAnimation/{{Tangled}} Rapunzel]], Cinderella, Belle, Anna, [[WesternAnimation/{{Tarzan}} Jane]] and [[WesternAnimation/{{Hercules}} Meg]].) These are just a few examples. Also, there are countries in the world that still legalize underage marriage, so the statement is also completely ignorant. 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.

* 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 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 UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler made into a CastFullOfPrettyBoys, to "why is this considered horrifying?" like with [[WesternAnimation/TeenageMutantNinjaTurtles1987 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.

* Tropes/Darksteel: For me it would have to be Mark Hill's 2021 article "Why Is Everyone Angry About Six Days in Fallujah?" which unlike most of Hill's articles, seems to have no real clear point beyond "gamers are whiny manchildren and these game devs are EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL for making a game about a real life event in the Iraq war!", it's just a long rambling asinine article that suffers big time from "word vomit" (writing a lot without actually saying much of anything at all) and just regurgitates a bunch of bullshit stereotypes about gamers (the headline alone is clickbaity bullshit, as having problems with bad criticisms of video games that aren't even out yet is not remotely the same thing as "complaining about people taking them seriously"). Like how the same people that spoke out against the false notion that violent video games cause real life violence are the same people complaining about people criticizing the idea of the game, which is not remotely true and an overly broad generalization. Hill also spends a ridiculous amount of time cherry-picking the worst quotes from people back in 2009 and on Twitter and conveniently ignoring the many rational comments about the game in order to further his own narrative that gamers are morons. This article also suffers from CriticalResearchFailure, with Mark falsely claiming that ''VideoGame/CallOfDuty'' attempted to "rewrite" the Iranian hostage crisis and the "Highway of death" which is blatantly untrue, the franchise didn't try to do either of those things, the latter mission in ''VideoGame/CallOfDutyModernWarfare2019'' just happened to share a name with the real-life event, there's no real hard evidence that it was meant to be a rewrite of the incident as the actual mission has almost nothing in common with the real-life incident. Mark also acts like Creator/RogerEbert throughout as he almost seems to have an outright disdain for gaming as a whole, even outright claiming games "deserved to get the short end of the stick" and outright lied about ''VideoGame/ModernWarfare'' not being remotely anti-war (guess he forgot about the nuke sequence) and he claims that Six Days in Fallujah is going to be "nothing but propaganda" and is "disrespectful" failing to mention that actual soldiers that were in Fallujah worked on the game and that the devs said that you will spend a portion of the game playing as a civilian trying to help his family escape from the violence. Worst of all he assumes EVERY single person that's interested in this game is an alt-right troll who does not actually care about the content of the game itself and are only talking about it to piss certain people off, while that might be true for some people championing the game there are far more people that are legitimately interested in this game who were upset by Konami cancelling it due to them being complete and utter cowards and are excited to see it finally getting a second-chance after so long having been cancelled. Mark also does not even consider the fact that the devs are not serious when they say their game is "not political" when they obviously don't mean that, they are clearly saying that for two reasons-because company employees will get death threats if they get even the faintest whiff of a game being "political" (most notably alt-right trolls accused Ubisoft of being "racist against whites" when ''VideoGame/FarCry5'' had all white villains) and because being too political is precisely what got the game cancelled back in 2009 so they are no doubt keen to avoid that happening again. All this is not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms of this game to be had, but this article does a piss-poor job of getting any of them across, coming off more as badly worded and researched flame-bait that sounds like it was written by Jack Thompson himself for how much contempt it seems to have for gamers as a whole (or at least anyone who dares to not agree with Mark's own asinine opinions). I was hoping with J.F. Sargent finally getting fired that Cracked's anti-gamer nonsense would stop, but from this article it sounds like Hill is every bit as ignorant about gaming as a whole.