The Cracked Thread

The Road to El Dorado actually was a ripoff... of Disney's Kingdom of the Sun. Which was conceived as a somewhat formulaic 90s Disney film set in the Incan Empire, with a "The Prince and the Pauper" plot and also the Prince gets turned into a llama. Dreamworks responded by rushing out their own "Latin American-ish" adventure movie... and theirs came out first because Kingdom of the Sun got delayed and heavily reworked into the much wackier The Emperor's New Groove.

the main diference is that the south america-ish is treat diferent, in emperor new groove is pretty much the same way as hercules: a modern city with Incan traping while el dorado is sightly(very slightly) more realisitc

Im going with el dorado, the way they treat cortez as the dread....is fucking awsome

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-dr.-seuss-tried-to-battle-racism-and-failed-horribly/

Do you think Cracked realises that these articles a crap or are they actually dumb enough to believe this pap?

Seriously that book wasn't even about racism. Why not discuss the Sneeches of you were going for that angle.

The article brings up at the beginning how Dr. Seuss actually did draw some racist WWII propaganda (which he eventually came to regret). They could have focused on that.

And instead they chose "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish", probably one of the most innocent books in existence.

Yeah sure.

This HAS to be a parody

http://www.cracked.com/feature/we-were-slaves-isis-7-things-you-should-know/

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2324-sometimes-being-foster-kid-means-becoming-paycheck.html

Ready to get depressed folks? I am.

Yeah.....those articles were very screwed up in a depressing way.

edited 7th Jun '16 2:40:57 PM by Ecrivan

I have to ask. Why is the foster care system preferable to orphanages again? I'm not going to preten everyone who ran an orphanage was a good person but wouldn't it be easier to figure out which people were screwing the kids over.

Perhaps statistically you are more likely to get a good foster parent then a good orphanage? There is some people in the comment section that are upset because they think the author didn't go too deep enough into what kind of stuff you would find in the foster system good or bad

I suspect that foster care also requires a lot more background checks and parenting skills then running an orphanage, and that's before you get into focus of attention and care.

An orphanage could be run by anyone, often by people who have no parenting skills and simply have a strong religious conviction that they intend to press upon their charges. On top of that you're looking at maybe 2-3 adults managing who knows how many kids, there's only so much time and attention each kid can get.

Foster care, you get background checked (I think), have to province references, get checked up on regularly and have more time for the kid.

An abusive orphanage is going to get reprimanded because what else can they do? Put the kids out on the street? An abusive foster parent is done for.

The foster system in the US seems to be bad, but I think it's actually a step up from the orphanage system, which shows how low a bar we're working with here.

edited 7th Jun '16 4:27:57 PM by Silasw

Why would you need less background checks to be put in charge of dozens of children than you would for a single child?

edited 7th Jun '16 4:38:28 PM by Aetol

Why not just apply the same level of scrutiny to Orphanage heads?

Because shutting down an orphanage is a thing that carries a lot more weight than shutting out a foster parent. When the alternative is to turn 30 children out on to the streets, one tends to relax their standards a bit.

http://www.cracked.com/article_23942_5-awful-behaviors-video-games-reward-you-for.html

Only recognized #1. But even then, there's a stretch.

For World at War, it's implied that shooting the helpless Germans is the "good" option, seeing as it's preferable to letting the others ignite them with molotovs (Chernov chews you out if you let them burn in addition to one other choice in the game at the end). For Black Ops II, it's more of a restraint thing than team-killing. That's not even mentioning Shepherd's own back-stabbing moment in Modern Warfare 2, which flips Cracked's claim on its head.

To say nothing of some choices in Xenoblade Chronicles X.

I recognize Dishonored from number 4, and I do agree that making the "good" option the one involving giving Lady Boyle to her stalker is rife with Unfortunate Implications. I remember the developers having to do damage control over that choice by saying Boyle had the guy "wrapped around her finger" the whole time.

Silent Hill 3 I disagree with though, because the point of Heather forgiving that person is accepting her role as the Apocalypse Maiden the cult wants her to be. You should be condemned for that.

Fallout 3's vanilla ending is terrible, and everyone that's ever played that game agrees. I'm also pretty sure no one like the how the new ending insults you for no wanting to pointlessly waste your life. So I agree with this one as well.

edited 8th Jun '16 10:54:51 AM by VeryMelon

1. 1 The option in Co D: Black Ops II is there to keep the secret undercover agent, well undercover and secret. Menezes pretty much already knows he is a mole but the protagonists don't and for them it was important to keep him there. So it isn't exactly rewarding "team killing".

2. 2 the fallout entry is just plain shitty writing and the DL Cs pretty much void the issue since Broken Steel just shrugs off how you spent a week in coma and got up nice and healthy again.

3. 5 Is just plain stupid, being in the middle of a zombie holocaust and refusing to use a gun to someone because you don't like guns is something bad? Come on.

1. 5 was just an example of "Hero has to overcome his/her fear to save the day". There's practically the same scene at the end of Die Hard.

Photoplasty: 15 Reasons Why Young People Today Have It Tougher Than Ever

Alternately, "15 Facts That Prove The Deck Is Stacked Against Millennials."

The Dishonored example does not quite work as that game does not ever present the non-lethal/low chaos choices as the correct way to go about things nor do they present them as rewarding either. Infact that game had morally objectionable choices all around. You could still kill all of the targets including Lady Boyle and still get a low chaos ending.

Even with that said you have the Pendleton brothers getting there tongues cut out and turned into the very slaves they were controlling, you have a corrupt priest branded and heretic and forced into the plague-ridden parts of the city which was pretty much a death sentence (you even see him dying later on), you also pretty much doom the Regent I think into being killed by basically having him accidentally admit that yes he did participate in a lot of shady shit that got a lot of people killed. I find it kind of funny that out of all of these the only one Cracked complains about is the one were Lady Boyle was given away to a stalker with possible rape undertones (although it wasn't flat out stated what that creepy guy was going to do to her, just implied).

None of those are presented as the right choices in-game so Cracked missed the point yet again. Also on the topic of Lady Boyle, she alongside all of the other targets was far from innocent. Using the Heart on her flat-out states that she takes amusement out of destroying peoples livelihoods for fun alongside the fact that she was a rich person who could give a damn about the fact that her country around her mansion was falling apart at the seams (all she cared about was throwing lavish parties). The fact she supported a very corrupt man that wanted the last leader killed and Corvo framed for power was not the only crime she committed. This doesn't justify giving her to a potenial rapist but it doesn't absolve her crimes either.

Also, turns out Cracked missed an even worse Fallout 3 side quest from what I am reading. Apparently there was a quest were you basically get asked by a woman to get what is an date rape drug to her boyfriend to basically seduce him and make him give up his dream or want to be a priest. Despite the fact that your basically giving the woman the drugs to rape her boyfriend with you still get Good Karma for it which just reeks of Double Standard Rape: Female on Male

edited 8th Jun '16 8:19:20 PM by Ecrivan

My parents talk about finding a low-paying job that's low on the corporate ladder and then climbing the rungs to something that pays better. After reading that I think I'm coming to believe that they're speaking from their own experience, instead of trying to view things from my perspective. Which is understandable, but completely unhelpful to someone who has trouble finding non-menial labor because even "entry-level" jobs demand 3-5 years of experience these days (no oxymoron here!). How do you expect me to be promoted to a better job if I can't even find a job in the first place, huh?

Well I don't even live in the US and I have to deal with this experience before first job limbo.

It doesn't really help when I do find a job that doesn't requires this it is either a stupidly low paying one with lots and lots of hours or is simply not worth due to either requiring you to move to the butt ass end of the country or pays you well but it is in a region with a high cost of living.

....Ah fuck. That millennial article really worries me. I mean I knew that my generation was getting screwed for a long time but having actual numbers of just how much we are getting screwed is just as bad as not knowing the extent.

That certainly is very sobering really.....

I don't even have the benefit of a goal. I have no clue what I'd do if I did get a solid job.

I don't. That's the reason they singled it out.