aluminiumtrioxid

I genuinely have no idea how important it is to have at least a cursory understanding of the Bible for most works studied in an English class, so I really can't comment on that, but I do think having some basic knowledge of Christianity is just as important as having some basic knowledge of Greek and Roman mythology for someone who wants to study European literature. These subjects have been the core pillars of culture and education for centuries here. But why would that matter, I had never read the Bible before and I got my degree Its probably because in Hungary the Bible is considered very important to people ? No, it's because it was very "important" to some of our greatest writers and poets, and to miss allusions to it out of ignorance diminishes one's capacity to engage with the text. But I don't think this is a uniquely Hungarian phenomenon.

Well, you can hardly give people a disapproving glare over the Internet.

I genuinely have no idea how important it is to have at least a cursory understanding of the Bible for most works studied in an English class, so I really can't comment on that, but I do think having some basic knowledge of Christianity is just as important as having some basic knowledge of Greek and Roman mythology for someone who wants to study European literature. These subjects have been the core pillars of culture and education for centuries here.

And you went basically "lol so funny". And when people called you out on this,you were like "oh it's okay for me to feel a personal dislike towards the Chinese, because I have Economical Reasons". Yes my friend but what Trump said was funny because he also complemented the Chinese Then later I said " I dont really like the Chinese " ...but the posts were separate, I dont see the connection? Maybe someone else can comment? ...Or you could just realize that laughing at people's accents, while pretty immature and kinda racist, is pretty low on the scale of "terrible things a human being might commit", and you can acknowledge that "hey, this was actually Not Cool" without it automatically meaning you're an evil racist and general garbage person.

And you went basically "lol so funny". And when people called you out on this,you were like "oh it's okay for me to feel a personal dislike towards the Chinese, because I have Economical Reasons".

"I find the tactics employed by Chinese actors in my country to be morally reprehensible, and I'm somewhat wary towards Chinese businesses in general" is a perfectly reasonable (dare I say, justified) statement to make. "LOLOLO Chinese people speak with a weird accent, this white person mocking them is HILARIOUS" is pretty damn racist. "I can't be racist, I don't hate black people! In fact, I have many black friends!" Did he say that in the post earlier? Given China's engagement in Africa recently I just took it as that in his post on trusting them. Or not sure what the heck that is to mean to me, other than I posted the same earlier today, heh. It is to mean that people can totally be racist (or exhibit behavior that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from racism) without hating anybody in question. Heck, some of my friends do it all the time. But I prefer to call a spade a spade.

"I can't be racist, I don't hate black people! In fact, I have many black friends!" *cough* white fragility *cough*

Presumably it was the entirety of the Chinese people, acting in complete unison, who did this. No it was every single Chinese person...all 1 billion of them But on a serious note you cant separate how they do business in Africa They have a certain trade approach but its harmful and they lied to us My point is that this doesn't magically make racism "okay". I mean, jesus Malc, use context.

Presumably it was the entirety of the Chinese people, acting in complete unison, who did this.

I think that's a bit uncharitable. 1337's entire point was that "tax-funded welfare = the government takes your RIGHTFULLY EARNED money away to give it to the undeserving" (presumably while twirling their mustaches and cackling about the voter base they get to expand by making their livelihood depend entirely on said government) is a very childish viewpoint.

I'm wrestling with this sentence a bit. Can you clarify? One's achievements can't be decoupled from the environment those achievements took place in. To succeed, you need opportunities to do so. To even believe that success is achievable or even desirable, you need a cultural environment that encourages this attitude. And to preserve the results of your success, you need some semblance of stability and social order. "Self-made men" don't exist in a vacuum.

You had me until the self-made man part. I do believe it is possible to rise up from the bottom in our society, probably more so now than most of human history. Hard work and dedication can get you far today. But there is a point where you have to ask at what cost? A better question should be "what is the likelihood of doing so?". Sure, self-made men (in your definition of the term, at least) exist, much like lottery winners do, because as it turns out, if you throw enough people willing to give it a try at an opportunity, a few of them are bound to succeed sooner or later. Touting the individual skill and sacrifices they made as the deciding factor in their success, however, is misleading: there are many people similar to them who worked just as hard, and sacrificed just as much, with little result. Of course, all of this is kind of missing the entire point of 1337's post: that the social context in which these "self-made" men exist is not irrelevant, and pretending that their success has nothing to do with the fact that, as you pointed out, achieving such results is now probably more likely than ever in human history, is delusional.

you forgot nazi

Surely you must realize that somebody who needs the money to pay for basic amenities like housing, bills, food and clothing is more likely to spend it than literally anybody else. Giving money to people living below the poverty line is 100% sure to breed economic activity because they will die otherwise. Yes of course thats true but the idea of wealth creation in a Capitalist society is suppose to be where your Capital is used to generate revenue I was under the impression that people paying for their food, bills and housing will inevitably generate revenue for someone.

Surely you must realize that somebody who needs the money to pay for basic amenities like housing, bills, food and clothing is more likely to spend it than literally anybody else. Giving money to people living below the poverty line is 100% sure to breed economic activity because they will die otherwise.

I think you're conflating "equal outcome" and "maybe don't have so much of a gap between the haves and the have-nots that it literally kills people". I agree. And there are two ways to do that. Expand the economy so there is work and opportunity for all (a rising tide lifts all boats) or tax the living s--t out of everything in sight and use the money for "social welfare". The former solution creates equality by allowing the lower class to become middle class. Yeah, we've seen how well the "give money to the rich so they can create jobs for the poor" tactic worked so far. Spoiler: it didn't.

To be fair, studying the Bible probably should be part of any literature class. There's a massive body of texts that engage with it one way or the other, where lots of nuance is lost if you don't have the same background information the writer assumes is default.

Wouldn't even try. Like I said it would be foolish to give a straight fight. Well that kinda goes both ways, doesn't it.

I think you're conflating "equal outcome" and "maybe don't have so much of a gap between the haves and the have-nots that it literally kills people". And Occam's Razor suggests most likely the former

That's a tellingly specific insult. Of course it originates from the alt-right; heck, it is the alt-right, neatly summarized in less than three lines of text.

I do find it telling that the quote originates from a person who never lived under robber barons nor omnipotent moral busibodies. It also happens to be a bit of a tautology, inasmuch as being oppressed by omnipotent anything intent on oppressing you is always going to be worse than any non-omnipotent alternative. (Not like it was his point, but it's something I couldn't help pointing out.)

What? No listen & believe? Gee, it's almost as if people's positions were more nuanced than one would guess going by neat, dismissive little summaries like "listen & believe".

"A little weird" is perhaps understating it slightly Actually I just decided to re-read it, and I was astonished how well it's put together - the characterization is incredibly consistent, the twists are very well foreshadowed, the overarching themes and motifs are very coherent... and I was mostly surprised not because this is a standout book in its genre (well technically it is, because "fantasy steampunk" is generally not a genre associated with any level of consistent characterization, well-foreshadowed twists and coherent themes, but in the wider SF/F scene, it's not that special), but because Perdido Street Station had nowhere near this level of craftsmanship. I mean, Perdido Street Station is all kinds of awesome and genre-defining to me (when I first read it, after being brought up on a steady diet of golden age SF and Tolkien, the fact that genre fiction can actually be about other things than starships and evil overlords completely blew my mind), but it's very much a love letter to the aesthetics of new weird rather than a book with a plot that progresses from A to B. I **** you not, the actual events that kickstart the main conflict don't happen until the very end of the first half of the book.

Personally I'd go with "Bioware doesn't have very good writers", but whatever floats your goat.