Hell in A Handbasket

[Strike For The South]

My generation is filled with a bunch narcissistic, self involved, add-addled flunkies. I have never seen a group people congratulate themselves on a breadth on knowledge so shallow you would fail to drown an infant in it. It seems a Wikipedia page worth of research and some SAT words that still clang around in your head from time to time are enough to pass off as intelligence these days. There is no depth to anything people say anymore, it's a metaphorical race to spit the most words out and see what sticks.

When a 30 year lawyer who has his own practice, who hires his young guys, WHO JUST GAVE A 12.5 MILLION DOLLAR GIFT TO THE SCHOOL, stands up and speaks, please put away your damn Iphone and shut your damn mouth. Your parents failed to raised anything other than a little center of the universe. Please kill yourself.

These kids and there excuses. Women who get nothing but positive reinforcement simply because they are a solid 6/10. Men whose idea of manhood is some sort of cardboard cutout from a Stallone movie. Petulant children, the lot of them.

I'm going out back to smoke, this better have replies when I come back?

[Kralizec]

I also am going to have a smoke.

In my generation (4-5 years older than you kids) I've noticed a lot of overestimation. For example, many Dutch people exaggerate how well they speak foreign languages. Last year I was in Berlin with a couple of friends and we encountered a plaque or whatever and some of us wondered what it said. One of us said he'd translate it and boasted about it. I knew/know just enough German to read it most of the time and know the most common pitfalls for Dutch speakers. What he was telling us was almost the exact opposite of what the plaque actually said. Since the guy in question is a wiseass in general I remind him of this episode every now and then.

[TinCow]

Fear not, they reap what they sow.

[Kralizec]

Also: last month I went to a birthday party where I saw my old housemate from college days.

Said housemate is one of those people who feels uneasy about organ donation and isn’t registered as a donor, but frankly admits that he’d have no qualms about taking a kidney or a liver from someone else if needed. This is an issue which I feel strongly about so I discussed it with him several times whenever it came up. He never had any good arguments, he is not even religious, but nevertheless continues to feel “uneasy” about it.

A friend of his, which I haven’t seen in years (the following text should explain), did an internship in Indonesia as a student along with my housemate himself. This particular friend accumulated a large student debt (i.e. taxpayer’s money) with the intention of never paying it back. After he got his degree he went back to Indonesia to work there and if he would ever receive a letter demanding repayment he would ignore it, thinking it would be too much of a hassle for the state to go after him. I hope he’s wrong. We’re talking about 10.000 – 20.000 E’s at least.

Another friend of his was at the same party and was a petty thief in puberty. At that party he told us that even as a student and even after he graduated he had no qualms about stealing bicycle’s if he didn’t have one himself and was too lazy to walk. Even now that he had a job with a reasonable salary he didn’t see anything wrong with it; his personal convenience is extremely important to him and besides if you own a bike you’re just asking to have it stolen from you. Personally, I’ve been the victim of bicycle theft multiple times so this seriously pissed me off.

At this point I’ll mention that my old housemate and those two friends attended a type of school called “PABO” over here, and are now all teachers for either elementary school (till the age of 12) or early high school (till the age of 14). All of them are nice guys to drink a beer with, but if I believed in any particular deity I would pray for the future of this country’s children.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, I hate people as well, because I am much more mature than the masses. It shall be a pleasure engaging in this elitist thread, with you fine gentlemen and intellectuals.

[Hax]

I also am going to have a smoke.

In my generation (4-5 years older than you kids) I've noticed a lot of overestimation. For example, many Dutch people exaggerate how well they speak foreign languages. Last year I was in Berlin with a couple of friends and we encountered a plaque or whatever and some of us wondered what it said. One of us said he'd translate it and boasted about it. I knew/know just enough German to read it most of the time and know the most common pitfalls for Dutch speakers. What he was telling us was almost the exact opposite of what the plaque actually said. Since the guy in question is a wiseass in general I remind him of this episode every now and then.

That's actually pretty hilarious, and to be fair, it sound familiar enough. It reminds me of something else though, albeit in a different fashion: last monday, I went to the local "arthouse" movie theatre in Leiden, where they were showing the movie "Habibi", which is about the myth of Layla and Majnun set in modern-day Gaza. The movie itself was pretty okay as it showed how different Palestinians in Gaza dealt with trauma, stress, and alienation. Afterwards, there was an opportunity to ask questions to one of the people involved in the film, as well as to my professor of Persian studies (who had introduced the story). One of the first persons to raise their hand started going off on a tantrum, roughly saying that: "Palestinians are a brainless mob that don't allow for love or independent thinking". I was with six other students of Arabic and we were kind of flabbergasted, not so much at the fact that these people exist, but the fact that this particular man expressed his opinion like that. He didn't even allow for the guests to finish their sentences. It demonstrated a lack of basic decency and respect.

I think that we have to distinguish between 'all humans are equal' and 'all humans are to be treated equally'. Although the difference may seem insignificant, I think it's actually quite big. We appear to have reached a point where we try to treat a self-styled witch doctor and a fully-trained professional doctor equally. This is insane. I'm not saying literate people are better than illiterate people, and that academicians are more useful (or better) than a construction worker. I'm saying that people should be more cautious in screaming their opinions without carefully considering the full impact and implications of what they're actually saying.

I don't know anything about maths. I don't know anything about physics, native American religions or languages, or Bach. I know that I don't know anything about them, and that's fine. Heck, when you literally don't know anything about a subject, it's fine. I think it starts to get messy when people know a little about something, and assume that they know everything about anything.

So it's not so much a lack of knowledge that I find troubling; lack of wisdom and properly contextualising knowledge is far more dangerous.


Yes, I hate people as well, because I am much more mature than the masses. It shall be a pleasure engaging in this elitist thread, with you fine gentlemen and intellectuals.

This is probably the most elitist post in the thread so far.

[Strike For The South]

Yes, I hate people as well, because I am much more mature than the masses. It shall be a pleasure engaging in this elitist thread, with you fine gentlemen and intellectuals.

Exhibit A.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Idk about you guys, but when someone is being rude I tell them to shut up. When someone is obviously out of line, I make an effort to put them back in line. I don't lament the end of society because people are lazy and rude when they feel they can get away with it. I try to establish a presence that says, "I will not tolerate such actions." I make an effort instead of bitching about how smart phones are ruining society.

Guess that makes me an elitist though, gonna have to break the news to my parents.

[Strike For The South]

Idk about you guys, but when someone is being rude I tell them to shut up. When someone is obviously out of line, I make an effort to put them back in line. I don't lament the end of society because people are lazy and rude when they feel they can get away with it. I try to establish a presence that says, "I will not tolerate such actions." I make an effort instead of bitching about how smart phones are ruining society.

Guess that makes me an elitist though, gonna have to break the news to my parents.

The Iphone is not the problem. It's just how the problem has decided to manifest itself.

[Montmorency]

The "problem" isn't new, and neither is your expression of it.

What exactly would you like to discuss in this thread?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Iphone is not the problem. It's just how the problem has decided to manifest itself.You solve the problem by treating the symptom. Making sure people use technology appropriately in public creates a habit within them, habits become practice.You don't learn to work hard in school by acknowledging that you gotta do something every day, you learn how to work hard by sitting your butt down and doing work everyday until it becomes second nature.Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't need to carry people through adulthood, but that is the situation we find ourselves in, so we must take the responsibility of enforcing these habits so that we can enjoy a better public life.

[Strike For The South]

The "problem" isn't new, and neither is your expression of it.

What exactly would you like to discuss in this thread?

The degradation of society, spearhead by a narcissistic youth, emboldened by a coddling society.

Must everything have a point with you?

Serious is stressfull, dude

[Montmorency]

emboldened by a coddling society.

The society isn't coddling - it's dispiriting and harsh. If you mean that society is coddling in that the unemployed youth aren't confined to a choice between banditry and beggary, well, is that quite so bad?

If anything, the youth coddle themselves and each other. The expected achievement is lacking.

Edit: Oh, if you mean coddling from early childhood - I see what you're saying.

[Greyblades]

Strike, your parents' generation said the same thing about yours, thier parents said the same things about thiers and thier parents' parents said the same thing about thiers, repeat ad nausiam. This is not new, it happens to everyone, you've gotten old and the next generation doesn't live up with your expectations nor what your rose tinted memories of your experience as thier age makes you think is the standard.

[Fragony]

Strike, your parents' generation said the same thing about yours, thier parents said the same things about thiers and thier parents' parents said the same thing about thiers, repeat ad nausiam. This is not new, it happens to everyone, you've gotten old and the next generation doesn't live up with your expectations nor what your rose tinted memories of your experience as thier age makes you think is the standard.

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

Socrates

Yep

[Sigurd]

And then you have people who still smoke :shame:

[Husar]

I blame the older generations who kept teaching us that to get a job you have to appear competent.
It's not about what you are but about what you appear to be and that's not really new.
People are that way because it works best.
And it works best because most other people demand it.
Complain about the people who demand it, not the ones who adapt, although they're often the same, just in different situations.

[Fisherking]

Yes, we live in disturbing times. Old news. Far more interesting will be watching it all play out.

Yawn... first world problems...

And just how can you tell?

You live in Eugene, Or. One of the weirdest places on earth. Maybe Berkley is a bit weirder but your local is up at the top. Your reality is so filtered it bares little resemblance to what the rest of us see. Even given that you are more “in touch” than most of the population you are still in a near Alternate Reality.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The actions of youth have been lamented, as shown above, since ancient times.

But have parents ever coddled their kids to such an extent as we now do in modern times?

CR

[The Lurker Below]

This thread has really lived up to its title! After reading the first two posts I went to make some popcorn while pondering the possibilities that Strike is a lawyer with lots of experience and perhaps Kralizec was responding with a anectodal tale of Strike in his younger days. The thread took a major curve when some posts got exceedingly rationale, but has come back to the hell that Eugene, OR apparently is. Keep it up all! I hope to refresh this popcorn soon.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My generation is filled with a bunch narcissistic, self involved, add-addled flunkies. I have never seen a group people congratulate themselves on a breadth on knowledge so shallow you would fail to drown an infant in it.

Neither have I. Are you referring to the sense of entitlement that some of today's youth have on account of their education? If so, I think you are confusing a false sense of entitlement with disillusionment at broken promises.


It seems a Wikipedia page worth of research and some SAT words that still clang around in your head from time to time are enough to pass off as intelligence these days. There is no depth to anything people say anymore, it's a metaphorical race to spit the most words out and see what sticks.

Any yet maybe these trends have always been true in the educated classes, and the common folk just didn't know enough to be aware of it. We are infinitely more scrupulous nowadays when it comes to scientific research, political science, historical research etc than at any time in the past. And a lot more self-aware to. What was once a brilliant and revolutionary ideology is now just part of a historical narrative, neither original nor inspired. Seeing the past as a golden era of learning because it had a handful of great theorists is like looking back on how fantastic the 80's were because they produced a few great songs.


These kids and there excuses. Women who get nothing but positive reinforcement simply because they are a solid 6/10.

You sound like you've been on the misc. So you think women today all think they are goddesses because society tells them so. Really?


Men whose idea of manhood is some sort of cardboard cutout from a Stallone movie.

And yet I take just as much issue with your idea of manhood - or at least, the sort of attributes that you feel makes a man command respect. Your idea of the 30 year old lawyer that nobly takes on young recruits, as if it was an act of charity. Look how he contributes to society through his hard work! How dare you interrupt him! No doubt it was some unemployed youngster on that phone!

There are a lot of good people in the world, some of them will be keen businessmen. But what I don't like is when people conflate a person's work situation with morality, or their value as a person. The relationship between labour, material progress, and society are not such that any such link between work and morality should be made. I think that this conflation is in part a hangover from a time when such links existed. When laziness could destroy families, even starve communities. But I think it is more than that. It seems to me to be a way in which the 'better sort' of people attempt to retain the moral highground over the unemployed. Not the working-class - the underclass.

People with high-paying jobs rarely contribute more to society than anybody else. In fact, I see (most of) them as parasites of a magnitude way above that the benefit-scroungers will ever reach. First off, we have reached such a level of material progress that most 'respectable' jobs are concerned not with the production of wealth, but either with it's redistribution, or with non-productive/non-capital-creating services. As such, they do not even aid the material progress of society. Secondly, any wealth that they generate and 'invest' is not even rightfully their own, since they simply manage others' labour, and give a portion of it back to them. And thirdly, they don't create jobs, they monopolise them. That gap in the market was there before they took it over. And this last point is in a way the most relevant today, since it explains how our working conditions decline and our work hours increase at a time when the means of material production have been largely mechanised and human labour made redundant. This is an excellent article, btw (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/01/why-are-we-working-so-hard).

The thing is, many people, like the OP, are misguided. They think that they glorify work, when what they do is in fact glorify a person's role in a productive system where individual labour is not the means of it's organisation, but a tool to be controlled. But it's not only that, these people abuse labour, so that rather than being a healthy part of a person's life and being, it becomes their defining characteristic - the sole means of determining their role and place in society. Hence when we meet a stranger in any sort of semi-formal setting, name-asking aside, our first question is generally "what do you do?".

It is a very unhealthy situation, and a product of the individualistic and materialistic society that the OP so loves and yet hates the fruits of.

[Montmorency]

But it's not only that, these people abuse labour, so that rather than being a healthy part of a person's life and being, it becomes their defining characteristic - the sole means of determining their role and place in society. Hence when we meet a stranger in any sort of semi-formal setting, name-asking aside, our first question is generally "what do you do?".

This is pretty much always the case in accounts of any period.

Towns organized by ethnicity and occupation - and occupations stereotypically ascribed to ethnicities.

Furthermore, think surnames...

What one does is what one is - always. In fact, it is less true than in the past because of the fluidity of social position and role in the contemporary period.


But what I don't like is when people conflate a person's work situation with morality, or their value as a person.

Sounds like self-aggrandizement.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is pretty much always the case in accounts of any period.

Towns organized by ethnicity and occupation - and occupations stereotypically ascribed to ethnicities.

Furthermore, think surnames...

What one does is what one is - always. In fact, it is less true than in the past because of the fluidity of social position and role in the contemporary period.

I think that this is partly true but in a different way. To be called "Smith", "Hunter", "Potter" etc indicated your role in a relatively self-sufficient community. Now, your work purely represents your social standing.


Sounds like self-aggrandizement.

I've only been unemployed for three weeks I didn't develop all these ideas in that time, my disillusionment goes back a lot further, lol.

[Montmorency]

I think that this is partly true but in a different way. To be called "Smith", "Hunter", "Potter" etc indicated your role in a relatively self-sufficient community. Now, your work purely represents your social standing.

So this is really just a complaint about globalization of supply chains?


I've only been unemployed for three weeks I didn't develop all these ideas in that time, my disillusionment goes back a lot further, lol.

A safety net, then.

[Montmorency]

I think his complaints are more about the perceptions and motivations of the people involved in the global economy

I got that he perceives an inflated role of managers of labor and financial capital. You think he's against the common aspiration toward material success?


as opposed to the fact that it is indeed a global economy.

Seems inextricable.

[The Lurker Below]

"When a man tells you he got rich through hard work ask him: Whose?" - Don Marquis

It's too easy to give up on validity and resort to quips like this. It's too easy to say it's always been this way, one generation to the next complaining about the upcoming one. Can't profess to know the answer but I'll offer this:

There has been an overabundance of opportunity in the past, and it's drying up, rather, the opportunities no longer outstirp those vying for them. The past opportunity HAS led to today's youth to be pampered and spoiled by my generation, which was pampered and spoiled. While prior generations made the same claims, at least they could offer ample resources for the upcoming youth to take advantage of. It will take more time and effort to succeed today, with more efficient use of the mind to make it happen, than it did in the past, and a lot of our youngsters are unwilling to prepare themselves.

the solution: widespread hunger. hungry people figure stuff out.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But what I don't like is when people conflate a person's work situation with morality, or their value as a person.
...
It seems to me to be a way in which the 'better sort' of people attempt to retain the moral highground over the unemployed.

Lots of NSFW language:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZg_ALxEz0

The point is that people talk about how they're a decent person - kind, loving, generous, etc. - often as an excuse for why they aren't getting something done, or aren't able to offer anything of value to society. To me, being decent, kind, and generous is sort of the baseline requirement.


And this last point is in a way the most relevant today, since it explains how our working conditions decline and our work hours increase at a time when the means of material production have been largely mechanised and human labour made redundant. This is an excellent article, btw.

Meh. It complains first that machines aren't doing all of our menial labor intensive tasks in society - and then that industries where machines have replaced man people are unemployed. But if all those laborers can offer to society is their labor, then taking that away with machines will leave them without jobs. And since they have nothing to offer besides labor, why should they live off the fruits of the work of others? We still are a rather long ways off from where all our needs can be served by machines and we can live in luxury without working.


They think that they glorify work, when what they do is in fact glorify a person's role in a productive system where individual labour is not the means of it's organisation, but a tool to be controlled. But it's not only that, these people abuse labour, so that rather than being a healthy part of a person's life and being, it becomes their defining characteristic - the sole means of determining their role and place in society. Hence when we meet a stranger in any sort of semi-formal setting, name-asking aside, our first question is generally "what do you do?".

You are looking at it wrong, I think. It's not about glorifying work, but about glorifying a contribution to society. Our job is the fundamental way we contribute to society. So it is logical that how we contribute to society is a large part of what determines our role and place in society.


There has been an overabundance of opportunity in the past, and it's drying up, rather, the opportunities no longer outstirp those vying for them.

Or perhaps we have raised successive generations of people who think that the opportunities should come to them, and not the other way around.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Meh. It complains first that machines aren't doing all of our menial labor intensive tasks in society - and then that industries where machines have replaced man people are unemployed. But if all those laborers can offer to society is their labor, then taking that away with machines will leave them without jobs. And since they have nothing to offer besides labor, why should they live off the fruits of the work of others? We still are a rather long ways off from where all our needs can be served by machines and we can live in luxury without working.

People never asked to become obsolete. When the market moves faster than people anticipate, we should not blame them for having to live off of others in order to support themselves. What we should do, is put in place structures to allow workers to obtain new skills, while they live off the dole so that they can become not obsolete anymore. Train them as electricians, plumbers, engineers, scientists, whatever. Instead, they must face the same scenario that young students do, where they must take on student debt and leave the work force in order to obtain new skills, while at the same time take care of a family, a mortgage, car payments, insurance. They have no mobility and I don't think we should punish entire families because they did not anticipate the future of the manufacturing sector.

Thirty years ago, what was the Dow Jones even at? According to Wolfram Alpha it was 1065. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dow+jones+index+january+28th%2C+1983)
What is it at today? 13,896 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dow+jones+index+today)
That's a factor of 13 within thirty years. Contrast that with the Dow Jones 60 years ago, at 287.4. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=dow+jones+index+january+28%2C+1953) A factor of 3.7 times within that period of 30 years.

We have seen growth probably never seen before in human history in terms of productivity and wealth. It's one thing to swap out your car every 5-10 years, or your phone every 2-5 years or your tv every 2-5 years. But a worker isn't a phone or a car or a tv. We can't just swap them out and throw them in the recycle bin when we are done with them. Well, we actually can. But my point is that you are implying that the workers who do not adapt are not victims, so why do they deserve anything? I would not call them victims either, but they are certainly economically slighted. How can anyone anticipate the rapid amount of change that is currently happening and where we may be in the future? For all we know, cashiers could disappear entirely in 10 years, by being replaced by self checkout computers (something which is in progress right now, with some hiccups). Are the cashiers of today deserving of their future hardship because they do not choose to leave work right now and go back to school?




Or perhaps we have raised successive generations of people who think that the opportunities should come to them, and not the other way around.


Back before the crash, could we really blame them? Unemployment in mid-2007 was 4.4% (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US+unemployment+march+6th+2007). Today it is "7.8%", I put quotes there because that number is higher than it really is, since those who are unemployed and not looking for work are not counted among other things.

I think it is just hard to switch from a bubble mentality to a depression mentality when everyone on tv and in the government is telling you how we are striving ever closer to the glory days of 2006, so we should continue buying more things and putting on more debt. Of course people are going to say right back, we need to be given jobs in order for us to do that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The point is that people talk about how they're a decent person - kind, loving, generous, etc. - often as an excuse for why they aren't getting something done, or aren't able to offer anything of value to society. To me, being decent, kind, and generous is sort of the baseline requirement.

Which is only tangential to the point Rhy was trying to make. Here's a question: whose contribution to society is greater? That of the teacher, or that of the patent lawyer?

Judging by the hourly rates they command you would say the patent lawyer. In reality, though, the rates and profession of "patent lawyer" are entirely artificial and created as a byproduct of something else (arguably a broken patent system which is like a property bubble on the one hand, and the desire to patent things on the other). Whereas the teacher provides a basic service which is fundamental to our society.

So it used to be that while teacher was perhaps not paid the same as a lawyer, the two would be about equal in status.

Now that's long since changed, but the fundamental issue is that if you determine the status or worth of an individual purely by how much money they make you do not necessarily end up with a reasonable or fair assessment of their contributions to society.

[Crazed Rabbit]

People never asked to become obsolete. When the market moves faster than people anticipate, we should not blame them for having to live off of others in order to support themselves. What we should do, is put in place structures to allow workers to obtain new skills, while they live off the dole so that they can become not obsolete anymore. Train them as electricians, plumbers, engineers, scientists, whatever. Instead, they must face the same scenario that young students do, where they must take on student debt and leave the work force in order to obtain new skills, while at the same time take care of a family, a mortgage, car payments, insurance. They have no mobility and I don't think we should punish entire families because they did not anticipate the future of the manufacturing sector.


I'd agree they are the victims of progress. I think I came out a bit harsh against them because I was arguing against the article.


Back before the crash, could we really blame them? Unemployment in mid-2007 was 4.4% (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US+unemployment+march+6th+2007). Today it is "7.8%", I put quotes there because that number is higher than it really is, since those who are unemployed and not looking for work are not counted among other things.

Oh, most kids were definitely told by school and society that you just had to go to college, get a degree, and you were set. So I'd blame the kids a little bit for listening, but most of the blame definitely goes to the people who were telling them that.


CR, why does your world view seem to have more to do with "What are you good for?" instead of "What can you be good for?"

Too often people will talk about their potential to be something. But just having potential doesn't matter unless the person is working to realize that potential.


People need to start placing a higher premium on someone's right to work, because when it comes down to it there's not a single job that can't eventually be replaced by a couple of rich guys and a few robots given enough time and technology.

I might nitpick a bit with that. But my main contention is that new jobs are always being created, and that saying someone has a 'right' to work and then preventing the use of machines to replace them holds us back as a society, instead of allowing us to advance economically and with new innovations. I'd much rather give displaced workers some technical training.


Which is only tangential to the point Rhy was trying to make. Here's a question: whose contribution to society is greater? That of the teacher, or that of the patent lawyer?

Judging by the hourly rates they command you would say the patent lawyer. In reality, though, the rates and profession of "patent lawyer" are entirely artificial and created as a byproduct of something else (arguably a broken patent system which is like a property bubble on the one hand, and the desire to patent things on the other). Whereas the teacher provides a basic service which is fundamental to our society.

So it used to be that while teacher was perhaps not paid the same as a lawyer, the two would be about equal in status.

Now that's long since changed, but the fundamental issue is that if you determine the status or worth of an individual purely by how much money they make you do not necessarily end up with a reasonable or fair assessment of their contributions to society.

I see your point. I don't always agree with how some people get paid (especially, say, wall st investors - use index funds people!).

Bu I'd disagree that teachers aren't highly respected by many. Though the reason they are respected is still because of their job, and what they do. That's what they offer to society.

CR

[Montmorency]

I might nitpick a bit with that. But my main contention is that new jobs are always being created, and that saying someone has a 'right' to work and then preventing the use of machines to replace them holds us back as a society, instead of allowing us to advance economically and with new innovations. I'd much rather give displaced workers some technical training.

But then the state must step in to prevent these individuals from causing, ah, 'acute economic disruptions'. Whether it's social welfare or riot troops, the marginalized elements of society need to be accounted for.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, my point was that Eugene is the perfect example of the cognitive dissonance that infects our spoiled society. Spoiled rich kids come to our town, go to our college, trash our streets--our cops can't even afford to do anything about it, in fact the jail has been full to the point of not taking anyone new (http://www.kmtr.com/mostpopular/story/Eugene-Police-sees-jail-bed-closure-impact-as/0qpHo0u71UW_oTyDCmnTZg.cspx) for quite some time--while the average middle-class citizen of Eugene exists solely because of the money these rich kids bring into the town. These same middle-class citizens clamor for laws that allow the police to arrest homeless people for being, quite literally, in the wrong part of town at the wrong time while proclaiming to be beacons of liberal intellectualism as they give their kids some weed money and tell them to go play. And they wonder why they wind up with english degrees or homeless.

Putting English degrees on a par with homelessness is a tad harsh. Mario Cuomo, Michael Eisner, Sally Ride, Giamatti, for example, were all English majors. A degree in one of the humanities does NOT condemn one to a life of poetical pontification.

[Papewaio]

Putting English degrees on a par with homelessness is a tad harsh. Mario Cuomo, Michael Eisner, Sally Ride, Giamatti, for example, were all English majors. A degree in one of the humanities does NOT condemn one to a life of poetical pontification.

It is perfectly apt to point out that a non professional degree will not generate professional income without further education.

Dr Sally Ride had a Ph D in Physics
Governor Mario Coumo had a first in class Law degree
Paul Giamatti is an actor so his degree level isn't as important as his theatrical training. But he also has a Masters in Fine Arts.
Leaving Eisner the only one listed solely with the Mickey Mouse degree. :drummer:

[Hax]

It depends on the subject matter. I'm doing a major in what I think is part of the "liberal arts" in America (major: Arabic languages & culture, minor: Persian language&culture), which will probably have guys on the harder sciences looking down at me.

That's fine. You can laugh now. At least I'll be able to save my life and my beloved when the Muslims conquer us.

On a serious note, though, and I talked about this with my co-ordinator, and he basically said that if I continue studying Persian and focus on areas that haven't been discussed ad tedium, I'll probably be able to figure something out. The hell, I plan to stay in academia anyway.

[Beskar]

On a serious note, though, and I talked about this with my co-ordinator, and he basically said that if I continue studying Persian and focus on areas that haven't been discussed ad tedium, I'll probably be able to figure something out. The hell, I plan to stay in academia anyway.

Ambassador Hax

[Papewaio]

00Hax

[Kralizec]

In the latest diplomatic row between the two countries, the Republic of Iran expelled the Dutch ambassador.

The Iranian minister for foreign affairs was quoted as saying "omgwtf hax!!111!"

[Hax]

Ugh no, I was at a lecture on the history of the faculty of Arabic and there were some ambassadors there. They looked like Iraqi maffia or something. No thank you.