As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are, so they obviously are doing a great job, regardless of whether or not that is true. I have not found them to be either any better or worse workers than anyone else. It's similar to that guy you know who's way smarter than you, and has great ideas, but never seems to go anywhere because he doesn't have the work ethic to back it up. His intelligence makes him feel too entitled to success to actually achieve it.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
I am a big proponent of systems which provide clear steps of advancement, so that when you wake up at the age of twenty-three, and realize you've been doing crappy work for the last five years, you can see the way to change that. I think a good system provides opportunity, rather than privilege and entitlement. I will be happy to pay off my $50,000 in school loans because it will be worth it for me. I want the opportunity to obtain those loans. I also however don't want people requiring a $50,000 degree for a job that doesn't need it.
Precisely. What bugs me right now is that, for instance, I know someone who has gone through college in communications. That communications degree, with a specialization in marketing, is not enough. Employers want multiple internships or years of experience - which then begs the question - what's the point of a college degree if in order to get a job, you need the degree AND experience? Couldn't one have obtained that experience through internships, gained real world skills and their applications within the field, rather than wasting money and time on a college degree? And for what? To say you can conform?
If the purpose of a college degree is to get a job and have more knowledge about a specific field...it seems like a lot of that can be obtained through internships.
If a college degree is about making you a better person, expanding your knowledge base, consequently causing you to grow...it needs to be cheaper.
The purpose of college is to network your fucking ass off and get drunk doing it. Pass your classes, work some jobs, but work that crowd.
As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are, so they obviously are doing a great job, regardless of whether or not that is true. I have not found them to be either any better or worse workers than anyone else. It's similar to that guy you know who's way smarter than you, and has great ideas, but never seems to go anywhere because he doesn't have the work ethic to back it up. His intelligence makes him feel too entitled to success to actually achieve it.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
I am a big proponent of systems which provide clear steps of advancement, so that when you wake up at the age of twenty-three, and realize you've been doing crappy work for the last five years, you can see the way to change that. I think a good system provides opportunity, rather than privilege and entitlement. I will be happy to pay off my $50,000 in school loans because it will be worth it for me. I want the opportunity to obtain those loans. I also however don't want people requiring a $50,000 degree for a job that doesn't need it.
Precisely. What bugs me right now is that, for instance, I know someone who has gone through college in communications. That communications degree, with a specialization in marketing, is not enough. Employers want multiple internships or years of experience - which then begs the question - what's the point of a college degree if in order to get a job, you need the degree AND experience? Couldn't one have obtained that experience through internships, gained real world skills and their applications within the field, rather than wasting money and time on a college degree? And for what? To say you can conform?
If the purpose of a college degree is to get a job and have more knowledge about a specific field...it seems like a lot of that can be obtained through internships.
If a college degree is about making you a better person, expanding your knowledge base, consequently causing you to grow...it needs to be cheaper.
The purpose of college is to network your fucking ass off and get drunk doing it. Pass your classes, work some jobs, but work that crowd.
Well, then I made the mistake of going to an affordable state school rather than Princeton.
And networking can be done at a cheaper price.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are, so they obviously are doing a great job, regardless of whether or not that is true. I have not found them to be either any better or worse workers than anyone else. It's similar to that guy you know who's way smarter than you, and has great ideas, but never seems to go anywhere because he doesn't have the work ethic to back it up. His intelligence makes him feel too entitled to success to actually achieve it.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
I am a big proponent of systems which provide clear steps of advancement, so that when you wake up at the age of twenty-three, and realize you've been doing crappy work for the last five years, you can see the way to change that. I think a good system provides opportunity, rather than privilege and entitlement. I will be happy to pay off my $50,000 in school loans because it will be worth it for me. I want the opportunity to obtain those loans. I also however don't want people requiring a $50,000 degree for a job that doesn't need it.
Precisely. What bugs me right now is that, for instance, I know someone who has gone through college in communications. That communications degree, with a specialization in marketing, is not enough. Employers want multiple internships or years of experience - which then begs the question - what's the point of a college degree if in order to get a job, you need the degree AND experience? Couldn't one have obtained that experience through internships, gained real world skills and their applications within the field, rather than wasting money and time on a college degree? And for what? To say you can conform?
If the purpose of a college degree is to get a job and have more knowledge about a specific field...it seems like a lot of that can be obtained through internships.
If a college degree is about making you a better person, expanding your knowledge base, consequently causing you to grow...it needs to be cheaper.
The purpose of college is to network your fucking ass off and get drunk doing it. Pass your classes, work some jobs, but work that crowd.
Well, then I made the mistake of going to an affordable state school rather than Princeton.
And networking can be done at a cheaper price.
Absolutely can be done cheaper. Internships are well and fine but there more of a measure of how much bullshit you'll do for the potential of a payoff. And really some of the problem is that not every degree is worth the same potential payoff but the tuition rates don't reflect that. Aerospace students pay the same amount as a communications student but by and large there is almost a guarantee of a job for the Aerospace student as soon as they graduate. They put in a lot of long hours, don't really get to be as social as they want, but they're networking with all the people that they'll be working with in the future. It's kind of neat really.
As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are...
If this is your attitude, I'd say you're the one with the entitlement issues. A college degree, while never an absolute guarantee of a person's work ethic or intelligence, does demonstrate that person's acumen and dedication to the field of study in which they were accredited. If they weren't smart or dedicated, they wouldn't have earned their degree.
This dismissive attitude towards education is disgusting. Yes, there really is such a thing as expertise, and yes, many fields of expertise require rigorous study as well as field experience (engineering is an excellent example: without an excellent grasp of mathematical theory, you simply will not be a good engineer. Biotechnology, geology, astrophysics, ecology... the list of fields requiring formal study of fundamental principles is staggering).
Kevin R Brown on
' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are...
If this is your attitude, I'd say you're the one with the entitlement issues. A college degree, while never an absolute guarantee of a person's work ethic or intelligence, does demonstrate that person's acumen and dedication to the field of study in which they were accredited. If they weren't smart or dedicated, they wouldn't have earned their degree.
This dismissive attitude towards education is disgusting. Yes, there really is such a thing as expertise, and yes, many fields of expertise require rigorous study as well as field experience (engineering is an excellent example: without an excellent grasp of mathematical theory, you simply will not be a good engineer. Biotechnology, geology, astrophysics, ecology... the list of fields requiring formal study of fundamental principles is staggering).
You sir, are an incredibly silly goose. You did however do a good job taking that quote sufficiently out of context that you could create a good strawman. And considering I mentioned in the same post that I will be happy to pay my $50,000 in student loans it might have been a somewhat reasonable assumption on your part that I do actually see some value in higher education. Silly, silly goose.
- Society expects all children to go to college. Teenagers are bombarded from all sides with this message.
- Colleges advertise themselves based on job placement and promises of high-paying careers to justify the expense.
- Students spend another few years hearing over and over about the incomes they'll be earning.
- Reality.
So, the real reason "they feel entitled" is because everyone's been lying to them their whole life?
Well from what I've heard the majority of young people don't go to college and then a good portion of those that do don't finish. As a whole, people with degrees are a minority. Kinda makes it hard to believe that a degree is necessary for a good job. I know with myself personally I've heard people state on more than one occasion that it isn't necessary for a lot of positions in the art, games, and film industries.
Guess which industries are famous for being terrible outside of the ten people who hit it big.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
A big part of the problem as I see it, is just kind of an economic truth. If you do your job twice as well as your coworker, you will not make twice as much money as him. There are plenty of other benefits such as acquiring useful skills, and having the opportunity to get a better job. Unfortunately these things are less immediate and visceral which makes them significantly less motivating.
I am currently laughing so hard I cannot breathe.
I must bow before the cold precision of that argument.
The collapse theory, which you're almost spot on in describing, is also more complex both in concept and practice. Marx and the Second Internationale began with the "inevitable" revolution as a means of predicting the advent of socialism. In fact, many smart members of the intellectual communist movement believed that they would, within the decade, see an armed rebellion against capital. This is, in part, a reflection on the Utopian models of the 18th and 19th centuries in which philosophers would plan in intimate detail every aspect of the Utopian society, just as Plato planned his Republic.
Toni Negri, one of the last major Marxist theorists before the mass-shift to neo-Marxism, addresses this question of "collapse" pretty directly in noting that it is, essentially, the conditions of capital to provoke collapse. What Marx, et. all did not account for was the postmodern power structures which push back in a non-dual arrangement. Negri speaks specifically to what he calls the "Crisis of the Planner-State" in which he notes that the function of Keynesian economics is to provide for a grounding point between boom and bust and, most importantly, to postpone and continually "salvage" capital when it tips off the deep end.
We've seen the market destroy and consume itself in a major way at least twice, now. The continual boom and bust cycles we think of as "normal" are also minor functions of the market's same urge to consume itself. The purpose of the modern state (at least in the 1970's) was to regulate, pump-prime and act as a safety net for the market when it begins to implode.
It may not be as simple as "the market will or will not destroy itself", but instead more like "the market attempts to destroy itself and external forces of power must continually save the market".
I'm not certain if the example could be any clearer: we just saw the largest bust since 1929, yet the market survived because government pumped billions of dollars into the market in order to prevent widespread collapse.
I tend to fall into a mixture of Neo-Marxist and Ultra-Leftist (collapse and reorganize) belief. I also know that power will preserve the market at the expense of who or whatever it has it hurt. "Collapse" isn't some inevitable fact, it is a well-documented and understood economic activity which has provoked an immense and violent economic reaction from those who benefit from sustaining the current market.
While not really in disagreement with this, I tend to lean more towards Trotsky's perspective on the bourgeoisie: they must inevitably turn towards a fascist ideology of military entrenchment & personal isolation in order to preserve their class identity.
I really think the lack of will within the modern proletariat to issue an armed revolt is much more related to the actualization of Trotsky's fears than the new structure of the market (though I certainly agree that the new face of the market is also a contributor). To the average person in, say, America or Canada, stirring an insurrection (especially by use of violence) has become a taboo idea (for many different reasons - the cost vs benefits analysis on an individual level would be the primary factor, in my opinion), and this has been slowly solidified in the culture since it's introduction by the bourgeoisie at the beginning of the Cold War.
People today could, for example, still take to streets with proverbial torches & pitchforks and ransack the office towers of AIG as surely as they ransacked the Tsar's royal palace, but the challenge has been slowly made orders of magnitude more difficult in passing decades - large enterprises have multiple headquarters, favorable support from police forces, private security forces and, typically, plenty of rapport with local media outlets. Physically destroying a major banking firm isn't something that could feasibly done in just a few nights while maintaining the momentum of any proposed revolt, and a prolonged campaign would be unlikely to succeed - so, on top of every other inhibition most people have against acting violently, there's a strong disincentive in the form of the act's magnitude.
Bluntly, AIG really is 'Too Big to Fail'. Even if politicians in Washington weren't financially tied to them, I doubt they'd have dared to let it default.
Of course, as you have eloquently pointed out, it's somewhat ironic that this free market model doesn't even require a proletariat rebellion. It happily eats itself alive. It was saved at the end f the 1930s by the start of the 2nd World War, it was saved last year by direct government intervention... and what will save it when it collapses again?
Kevin R Brown on
' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
You sir, are an incredibly silly goose. You did however do a good job taking that quote sufficiently out of context that you could create a good strawman. And considering I mentioned in the same post that I will be happy to pay my $50,000 in student loans it might have been a somewhat reasonable assumption on your part that I do actually see some value in higher education. Silly, silly goose.
If you weren't simply dismissing certification, I apologize. That's what I read from your post.
As an aside, this 'silly goose' thing is beginning to grate on my nerves. Call me whatever the Hell you like; don't just say 'Silly Goose' because someone laid down a commandment for it (even if it is a joke, I don't find it funny). That is just so weak.
Kevin R Brown on
' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
You sir, are an incredibly silly goose. You did however do a good job taking that quote sufficiently out of context that you could create a good strawman. And considering I mentioned in the same post that I will be happy to pay my $50,000 in student loans it might have been a somewhat reasonable assumption on your part that I do actually see some value in higher education. Silly, silly goose.
If you weren't simply dismissing certification, I apologize. That's what I read from your post.
As an aside, this 'silly goose' thing is beginning to grate on my nerves. Call me whatever the Hell you like; don't just say 'Silly Goose' because someone laid down a commandment for it (even if it is a joke, I don't find it funny). That is just so weak.
"Someone" is Tube, and he has handed out infractions for non-compliance.
You sir, are an incredibly silly goose. You did however do a good job taking that quote sufficiently out of context that you could create a good strawman. And considering I mentioned in the same post that I will be happy to pay my $50,000 in student loans it might have been a somewhat reasonable assumption on your part that I do actually see some value in higher education. Silly, silly goose.
If you weren't simply dismissing certification, I apologize. That's what I read from your post.
As an aside, this 'silly goose' thing is beginning to grate on my nerves. Call me whatever the Hell you like; don't just say 'Silly Goose' because someone laid down a commandment for it (even if it is a joke, I don't find it funny). That is just so weak.
"Someone" is Tube, and he has handed out infractions for non-compliance.
Is it just his idea of a joke? I also find it INCREDIBLY annoying. I'm really hoping it goes away soon.
Well, that would make him a fascist douchebag who has no respect for your dignity or for free inquiry. Do you want to be Tube's drone?
Kevin R Brown on
' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Go on and keep pressing that button at your master's behest, then.
Kevin R Brown on
' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
It's only a problem if people are doing it wrong, which, being people, we of course will. The idea is to replace our traditional obscenities with an amusing catchphrase, but in our enthusiasm to embrace the catchphrase I'm afraid we might forget the magic that allowed us to trade obscenities in a discussion forum in the first place: a clear separation between argument and insult.
I'm reminded of a summer camp I went to as a kid that had a rifle range, with real .22lr guns, that managed to go forty or fifty years without an accident. But sometime in the '90s, a bunch of parents became concerned that their nine and ten year old children were being allowed to touch OMGGUNS, so the rifles were replaced with CO2-powered pellet guns.
The very first year that these went into use, a student shot the instructor in the ass on a bet. Her pelvis was fractured, and she was out of work for half a year. Good thing they got rid of those dangerous guns, eh?
You sir, are an incredibly silly goose. You did however do a good job taking that quote sufficiently out of context that you could create a good strawman. And considering I mentioned in the same post that I will be happy to pay my $50,000 in student loans it might have been a somewhat reasonable assumption on your part that I do actually see some value in higher education. Silly, silly goose.
If you weren't simply dismissing certification, I apologize. That's what I read from your post.
As an aside, this 'silly goose' thing is beginning to grate on my nerves. Call me whatever the Hell you like; don't just say 'Silly Goose' because someone laid down a commandment for it (even if it is a joke, I don't find it funny). That is just so weak.
I actually kind of like the silly goose thing. I think adopting such an innocuous phrase as the insult of the day helps keep the conversation going, since no one is ever going to get upset enough by it that it derails a thread... except now we have kind of gotten off topic through our discussion of it... Still like it though.
This discussion has been all about people's collective actions (as Orwell would put it, 'groupthink') - it's quite relevant to discuss that not only in theoretical terms, but in terms of what people actually do when told by a community figurehead (like yourself, within the context of the forum) to obey arbitrary commandments.
Kevin R Brown on
' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
As someone that does the hiring and firing at my job, I've got to say I do see a whole lot of entitlement from my employees with degrees. They tend to behave as if their degree obviously shows how smart and or accomplished they are...
If this is your attitude, I'd say you're the one with the entitlement issues. A college degree, while never an absolute guarantee of a person's work ethic or intelligence, does demonstrate that person's acumen and dedication to the field of study in which they were accredited. If they weren't smart or dedicated, they wouldn't have earned their degree.
This dismissive attitude towards education is disgusting. Yes, there really is such a thing as expertise, and yes, many fields of expertise require rigorous study as well as field experience (engineering is an excellent example: without an excellent grasp of mathematical theory, you simply will not be a good engineer. Biotechnology, geology, astrophysics, ecology... the list of fields requiring formal study of fundamental principles is staggering).
It's only a problem if people are doing it wrong, which, being people, we of course will. The idea is to replace our traditional obscenities with an amusing catchphrase, but in our enthusiasm to embrace the catchphrase I'm afraid we might forget the magic that allowed us to trade obscenities in a discussion forum in the first place: a clear separation between argument and insult.
I'm reminded of a summer camp I went to as a kid that had a rifle range, with real .22lr guns, that managed to go forty or fifty years without an accident. But sometime in the '90s, a bunch of parents became concerned that their nine and ten year old children were being allowed to touch OMGGUNS, so the rifles were replaced with CO2-powered pellet guns.
The very first year that these went into use, a student shot the instructor in the ass on a bet. Her pelvis was fractured, and she was out of work for half a year. Good thing they got rid of those dangerous guns, eh?
Well, yes, otherwise she'd have been shot in the arse with a bullet, and would now be dead.
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Can't blame the guy. When I was 16 I probably would have been just a silly goose. It's pretty upsetting when you realize that the people who make your toothpaste would let you brush your teeth with radioactive polonium if they thought they could get away with it and it would save them some money.
It's only a problem if people are doing it wrong, which, being people, we of course will. The idea is to replace our traditional obscenities with an amusing catchphrase, but in our enthusiasm to embrace the catchphrase I'm afraid we might forget the magic that allowed us to trade obscenities in a discussion forum in the first place: a clear separation between argument and insult.
I'm reminded of a summer camp I went to as a kid that had a rifle range, with real .22lr guns, that managed to go forty or fifty years without an accident. But sometime in the '90s, a bunch of parents became concerned that their nine and ten year old children were being allowed to touch OMGGUNS, so the rifles were replaced with CO2-powered pellet guns.
The very first year that these went into use, a student shot the instructor in the ass on a bet. Her pelvis was fractured, and she was out of work for half a year. Good thing they got rid of those dangerous guns, eh?
Well, yes, otherwise she'd have been shot in the arse with a bullet, and would now be dead.
No I'm more then willing to bet it happens because it was wrongly perceived a CO2-powered pellet gun was somehow "safe", whereas people are taught from every levels that guns are dangerous and lethal.
Of course that makes it a systemic failure: it's almost certainly a result of inadequate drilling on the fact that any projectile weapon is dangerous.
- Society expects all children to go to college. Teenagers are bombarded from all sides with this message.
- Colleges advertise themselves based on job placement and promises of high-paying careers to justify the expense.
- Students spend another few years hearing over and over about the incomes they'll be earning.
- Reality.
So, the real reason "they feel entitled" is because everyone's been lying to them their whole life?
Well from what I've heard the majority of young people don't go to college and then a good portion of those that do don't finish. As a whole, people with degrees are a minority. Kinda makes it hard to believe that a degree is necessary for a good job. I know with myself personally I've heard people state on more than one occasion that it isn't necessary for a lot of positions in the art, games, and film industries.
Guess which industries are famous for being terrible outside of the ten people who hit it big.
Eh, I was really hoping I'd be able to make somewhat of a living in independent film now that I know a few people working in it.
As for pellet guns, shiiit me and my friends spent two whole summers shooting each other with airsoft guns. But now that I think about it there's probably a reason they're called airsoft guns.
- Society expects all children to go to college. Teenagers are bombarded from all sides with this message.
- Colleges advertise themselves based on job placement and promises of high-paying careers to justify the expense.
- Students spend another few years hearing over and over about the incomes they'll be earning.
- Reality.
So, the real reason "they feel entitled" is because everyone's been lying to them their whole life?
Well from what I've heard the majority of young people don't go to college and then a good portion of those that do don't finish. As a whole, people with degrees are a minority. Kinda makes it hard to believe that a degree is necessary for a good job. I know with myself personally I've heard people state on more than one occasion that it isn't necessary for a lot of positions in the art, games, and film industries.
Guess which industries are famous for being terrible outside of the ten people who hit it big.
Eh, I was really hoping I'd be able to make somewhat of a living in independent film now that I know a few people working in it.
As for pellet guns, shiiit me and my friends spent two whole summers shooting each other with airsoft guns. But now that I think about it there's probably a reason they're called airsoft guns.
You'll find work that values the requisite skills, just like communication signals an understanding of word of mouth and information networks (as well as how to deal with customers and employees). I've heard architecture is the worst in the drones-and-queens dynamics.
Either way, try to find a good job for a concentration in ethology. I guess a BA/S in Bio and a generic master's is good, but the only thing I can see outside of research is reminding people that I had to take a ton of classes in wildlife management and ecology. Granted, I want to do research, but I'll also want to be a caregiver for my kids, so a job with good hours would be nice.
Posts
The purpose of college is to network your fucking ass off and get drunk doing it. Pass your classes, work some jobs, but work that crowd.
Well, then I made the mistake of going to an affordable state school rather than Princeton.
And networking can be done at a cheaper price.
Absolutely can be done cheaper. Internships are well and fine but there more of a measure of how much bullshit you'll do for the potential of a payoff. And really some of the problem is that not every degree is worth the same potential payoff but the tuition rates don't reflect that. Aerospace students pay the same amount as a communications student but by and large there is almost a guarantee of a job for the Aerospace student as soon as they graduate. They put in a lot of long hours, don't really get to be as social as they want, but they're networking with all the people that they'll be working with in the future. It's kind of neat really.
If this is your attitude, I'd say you're the one with the entitlement issues. A college degree, while never an absolute guarantee of a person's work ethic or intelligence, does demonstrate that person's acumen and dedication to the field of study in which they were accredited. If they weren't smart or dedicated, they wouldn't have earned their degree.
This dismissive attitude towards education is disgusting. Yes, there really is such a thing as expertise, and yes, many fields of expertise require rigorous study as well as field experience (engineering is an excellent example: without an excellent grasp of mathematical theory, you simply will not be a good engineer. Biotechnology, geology, astrophysics, ecology... the list of fields requiring formal study of fundamental principles is staggering).
You sir, are an incredibly silly goose. You did however do a good job taking that quote sufficiently out of context that you could create a good strawman. And considering I mentioned in the same post that I will be happy to pay my $50,000 in student loans it might have been a somewhat reasonable assumption on your part that I do actually see some value in higher education. Silly, silly goose.
--LeVar Burton
Guess which industries are famous for being terrible outside of the ten people who hit it big.
I am currently laughing so hard I cannot breathe.
I must bow before the cold precision of that argument.
--LeVar Burton
While not really in disagreement with this, I tend to lean more towards Trotsky's perspective on the bourgeoisie: they must inevitably turn towards a fascist ideology of military entrenchment & personal isolation in order to preserve their class identity.
I really think the lack of will within the modern proletariat to issue an armed revolt is much more related to the actualization of Trotsky's fears than the new structure of the market (though I certainly agree that the new face of the market is also a contributor). To the average person in, say, America or Canada, stirring an insurrection (especially by use of violence) has become a taboo idea (for many different reasons - the cost vs benefits analysis on an individual level would be the primary factor, in my opinion), and this has been slowly solidified in the culture since it's introduction by the bourgeoisie at the beginning of the Cold War.
People today could, for example, still take to streets with proverbial torches & pitchforks and ransack the office towers of AIG as surely as they ransacked the Tsar's royal palace, but the challenge has been slowly made orders of magnitude more difficult in passing decades - large enterprises have multiple headquarters, favorable support from police forces, private security forces and, typically, plenty of rapport with local media outlets. Physically destroying a major banking firm isn't something that could feasibly done in just a few nights while maintaining the momentum of any proposed revolt, and a prolonged campaign would be unlikely to succeed - so, on top of every other inhibition most people have against acting violently, there's a strong disincentive in the form of the act's magnitude.
Bluntly, AIG really is 'Too Big to Fail'. Even if politicians in Washington weren't financially tied to them, I doubt they'd have dared to let it default.
Of course, as you have eloquently pointed out, it's somewhat ironic that this free market model doesn't even require a proletariat rebellion. It happily eats itself alive. It was saved at the end f the 1930s by the start of the 2nd World War, it was saved last year by direct government intervention... and what will save it when it collapses again?
If you weren't simply dismissing certification, I apologize. That's what I read from your post.
As an aside, this 'silly goose' thing is beginning to grate on my nerves. Call me whatever the Hell you like; don't just say 'Silly Goose' because someone laid down a commandment for it (even if it is a joke, I don't find it funny). That is just so weak.
"Someone" is Tube, and he has handed out infractions for non-compliance.
Is it just his idea of a joke? I also find it INCREDIBLY annoying. I'm really hoping it goes away soon.
Tube is a capricious admin. Everyone just deals with it.
We fear Tube, and you should too.
I am suddenly reminded of the Milgrim Experiment.
Go on and keep pressing that button at your master's behest, then.
Yes, replacing insults with "silly goose" on a web forum is just like shocking someone repeatedly.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Ahahahaahahaha
really?
I'm reminded of a summer camp I went to as a kid that had a rifle range, with real .22lr guns, that managed to go forty or fifty years without an accident. But sometime in the '90s, a bunch of parents became concerned that their nine and ten year old children were being allowed to touch OMGGUNS, so the rifles were replaced with CO2-powered pellet guns.
The very first year that these went into use, a student shot the instructor in the ass on a bet. Her pelvis was fractured, and she was out of work for half a year. Good thing they got rid of those dangerous guns, eh?
I actually kind of like the silly goose thing. I think adopting such an innocuous phrase as the insult of the day helps keep the conversation going, since no one is ever going to get upset enough by it that it derails a thread... except now we have kind of gotten off topic through our discussion of it... Still like it though.
--LeVar Burton
that anecdote had no point at all
Stop being a silly goose, Rust.
We are on topic, asshole.
This discussion has been all about people's collective actions (as Orwell would put it, 'groupthink') - it's quite relevant to discuss that not only in theoretical terms, but in terms of what people actually do when told by a community figurehead (like yourself, within the context of the forum) to obey arbitrary commandments.
Communications? Yeah, you're wrong.
Well, yes, otherwise she'd have been shot in the arse with a bullet, and would now be dead.
No I'm more then willing to bet it happens because it was wrongly perceived a CO2-powered pellet gun was somehow "safe", whereas people are taught from every levels that guns are dangerous and lethal.
Of course that makes it a systemic failure: it's almost certainly a result of inadequate drilling on the fact that any projectile weapon is dangerous.
Eh, I was really hoping I'd be able to make somewhat of a living in independent film now that I know a few people working in it.
As for pellet guns, shiiit me and my friends spent two whole summers shooting each other with airsoft guns. But now that I think about it there's probably a reason they're called airsoft guns.
That was always the question I had regarding that stuff. "Apply this substance to area; hair grows."
if that were true then it would grow hair anywhere it touched.
What was that movie? The Great Peanut Butter Experiement or something...
Also, I doubt it creates hair in whole new areas so much as stimulate growth where it stopped.
You'll find work that values the requisite skills, just like communication signals an understanding of word of mouth and information networks (as well as how to deal with customers and employees). I've heard architecture is the worst in the drones-and-queens dynamics.
Either way, try to find a good job for a concentration in ethology. I guess a BA/S in Bio and a generic master's is good, but the only thing I can see outside of research is reminding people that I had to take a ton of classes in wildlife management and ecology. Granted, I want to do research, but I'll also want to be a caregiver for my kids, so a job with good hours would be nice.
http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html
A corporation is running for a Congress seat.
it's a troll run
should be hilarious