Don't Read to Your Children

[Blarghagh]

Why Edgar Allen Poe? That's not the Poe that refers to.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Why Edgar Allen Poe? That's not the Poe that refers to.

 

Managed screwing up copy/pasting the link. Should work normally now.

[Malcador]

Simply dumb masquarading as smart with some eloquent language.

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?

 

...Let's leave the SJW-bashing to the illiterate rage-addicts, shall we?

 

Bashing SJWs is something everyone should enjoy. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Malcador

[Meshugger]

 

Simply dumb masquarading as smart with some eloquent language.

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\

 

 

I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. 

 

I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

Philosophy was chucked under the Arts (and Science) faculty at my school. Don't know why they tied the Sciences with that stuff. Bastards were subsidized by other professional faculties too, so their tuition was lower

 

Does seem like a waste as there's not much consideration to the practical.

[ravenshrike]

Whether the interviewer agrees with the position of the philosophers in question is largely irrelevant. That this Swift is even conflicted over whether doing things to improve your child's development both intellectually and socially is good or bad is the ****ing issue. It is functionally INSANE. This dip**** probably looks at Harrison Bergeron and sees the proper way for society to develop. **** that noise.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Simply dumb masquarading as smart with some eloquent language.

 

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\

 

I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. 

 

I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list.

My experience has been that both are packed with people who think the **** they make up is profound despite it not being particularly good. And they tend to be bourgeois as well.

[Volourn]

".Let's leave the SJW-bashing to the illiterate rage-addicts, shall we?"

 

SJWs deserve every bashing they get. They are murderers, rapists, sexist nazi pieces of crap.

 

 

As for article, PATHETIC.

[Meshugger]

Philosophy was chucked under the Arts (and Science) faculty at my school. Don't know why they tied the Sciences with that stuff. Bastards were subsidized by other professional faculties too, so their tuition was lower

 

Does seem like a waste as there's not much consideration to the practical.

 

Same here. But they had some great funding, they even had their own building with a nice garden, seperated but equal from the others

 

 

 

 

Simply dumb masquarading as smart with some eloquent language.

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\

 

I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. 

 

I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list.

My experience has been that both are packed with people who think the **** they make up is profound despite it not being particularly good. And they tend to be bourgeois as well.

 

 

You must've attended a hipster-university, my condolences. True on hating the bourgeois though, but different in how they articulated it. Since the philosophers actually had classes in reason, ethics and morality, they could at least criticize them for being hazardous to a just society (from affording good lawyers to creating laws that benefit only them), the immorality of vices leading to inequity due the potential power and so on. 

 

The "artists" just thought that they were the first reading Karl Marx and attended every new kind protest for the sake of protesting. They did posess that raw spirit that one can admire. Too bad it was almost always focused on dumb ****.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Tsuga C]

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me, the phenomenon of promoting mediocrity lest the left side of the intellectual bell curve fall too far behind and suffer irreparable harm to their "self-esteem" has been with us since the '90s. It's appalling and serves no good purpose, period.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Philosophy was chucked under the Arts (and Science) faculty at my school. Don't know why they tied the Sciences with that stuff. Bastards were subsidized by other professional faculties too, so their tuition was lower

Does seem like a waste as there's not much consideration to the practical.

 

 

Same here. But they had some great funding, they even had their own building with a nice garden, seperated but equal from the others

 

 

 

 

Simply dumb masquarading as smart with some eloquent language.

 

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\

 

I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. 

 

I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list.

My experience has been that both are packed with people who think the **** they make up is profound despite it not being particularly good. And they tend to be bourgeois as well.

 

You must've attended a hipster-university, my condolences. True on hating the bourgeois though, but different in how they articulated it. Since the philosophers actually had classes in reason, ethics and morality, they could at least criticize them for being hazardous to a just society (from affording good lawyers to creating laws that benefit only them), the immorality of vices leading to inequity due the potential power and so on. 

 

The "artists" just thought that they were the first reading Karl Marx and attended every new kind protest for the sake of protesting. They did posess that raw spirit that one can admire. Too bad it was almost always focused on dumb ****.

Oh I was saying that the students of art and philosophy are largely bourgeois. More so than the STEMlords or economics and pre-law students at any rate.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me, the phenomenon of promoting mediocrity lest the left side of the intellectual bell curve fall too far behind and suffer irreparable harm to their "self-esteem" has been with us since the '90s. It's appalling and serves no good purpose, period.

 

In all fairness though, the article wasn't really about that.

[Tsuga C]

In all fairness though, the article wasn't really about that.

True enough. It was about mouthy fools complaining that parents taking seriously the responsibility of raising their children, a positive trait from an evolutionary standpoint, were giving their children an "unfair advantage" over those whose parents chose not to so invest themselves in child rearing. Indifferent parenting begets indifferent results, SJWs--deal with it! Sheesh...

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

In all fairness though, the article wasn't really about that.

True enough. It was about mouthy fools complaining that parents taking seriously the responsibility of raising their children, a positive trait from an evolutionary standpoint, were giving their children an "unfair advantage" over those whose parents chose not to so invest themselves in child rearing. Indifferent parenting begets indifferent results, SJWs--deal with it! Sheesh...

 

 

...No, that's also a serious misreading.

 

What's with people's reading comprehension suddenly shutting down the moment SJWs enter the picture?

[Blarghagh]

Because, we hate people who ask for equal treatment on instinct. God instilled that in us after Satan asked for equal rights.

 

(Did that one fare better on the Poe's law front?)

Edited May 8, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Because, we hate people who ask for equal treatment on instinct. God instilled that in us after Satan asked for equal rights.

 

(Did that one fare better on the Poe's law front?)

 

It did.

 

It just... wasn't very funny 

[Nonek]

Started a Wizard of Earthsea tonight, put on my Brian Blessed dramatic voice and read my little ones the first few chapters, they were absolutely gripped by the attack of the Kargish Raiders and the mist Sparrowhawk summoned forth. Think i'm on to a winner with this, thrilling, a touch scary for a little one, simple and yet possessing a certain nuance.

 

Can't wait to describe the Dragon of Pendor and Ged's spell battle.

[Malcador]

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me, the phenomenon of promoting mediocrity lest the left side of the intellectual bell curve fall too far behind and suffer irreparable harm to their "self-esteem" has been with us since the '90s. It's appalling and serves no good purpose, period.

Nah, the cool thing is to just not point out how people suck at things rather tham encouraging people to be bad at them. Well at least SJW people, not sure what regular folk want.

 

Cheat shaming in gaming is a thing.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Malcador

[Meshugger]

 

 

Philosophy was chucked under the Arts (and Science) faculty at my school. Don't know why they tied the Sciences with that stuff. Bastards were subsidized by other professional faculties too, so their tuition was lower

Does seem like a waste as there's not much consideration to the practical.

 

Same here. But they had some great funding, they even had their own building with a nice garden, seperated but equal from the others

 

 

 

 

Simply dumb masquarading as smart with some eloquent language.

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\

 

I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. 

 

I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list.

My experience has been that both are packed with people who think the **** they make up is profound despite it not being particularly good. And they tend to be bourgeois as well.

 

You must've attended a hipster-university, my condolences. True on hating the bourgeois though, but different in how they articulated it. Since the philosophers actually had classes in reason, ethics and morality, they could at least criticize them for being hazardous to a just society (from affording good lawyers to creating laws that benefit only them), the immorality of vices leading to inequity due the potential power and so on. 

 

The "artists" just thought that they were the first reading Karl Marx and attended every new kind protest for the sake of protesting. They did posess that raw spirit that one can admire. Too bad it was almost always focused on dumb ****.

Oh I was saying that the students of art and philosophy are largely bourgeois. More so than the STEMlords or economics and pre-law students at any rate.

 

 

Ooops. One word, or the lack if it, can change everything :D I have no excuse except i live in a country where the humanities are exclusively different shades of left that i imagined myself reading as they hated the bourgeois. Well, they wanted secretly to be artistocrats themselves, but that's another matter.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ooops. One word, or the lack if it, can change everything :D I have no excuse except i live in a country where the humanities are exclusively different shades of left that i imagined myself reading as they hated the bourgeois. Well, they wanted secretly to be artistocrats themselves, but that's another matter.

Well I suppose they are generally left, but more social democrats than socialist and more concerned about intersectional boogeymen than class or economics.

[Guard Dog]

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me,

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs.

[Longknife]

https://youtu.be/3xvqGoNX3Uc?t=2m32s

 

 

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs.

 

 

Pro logic dude. You'd last real long in a debate class.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Longknife

[BruceVC]

 

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me,

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs.

 

 

I can agree with that and its amazing how well the USA has done since " SJW" have taken over running the government? Compare the USA under Bush to it now and the last 8 years under Obama...are we really going to say things were the same or better overall under Bush?

 

So SJ influence is  not always a bad thing?

[ravenshrike]

 

 

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me,

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs.

 

 

I can agree with that and its amazing how well the USA has done since " SJW" have taken over running the government? Compare the USA under Bush to it now and the last 8 years under Obama...are we really going to say things were the same or better overall under Bush?

 

So SJ influence is  not always a bad thing?

 

Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me,

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs.

 

 

I can agree with that and its amazing how well the USA has done since " SJW" have taken over running the government? Compare the USA under Bush to it now and the last 8 years under Obama...are we really going to say things were the same or better overall under Bush?

 

So SJ influence is  not always a bad thing?

 

Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting.

 

 

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members

 

The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better  or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ?