(You can't do anything if you're dead, after all.)
652 karma · joined July 30, 2012
(You can't do anything if you're dead, after all.)
/American citizen
Then he went on some rant about how all the Canadians have to come down here for health care, and that was why you never hear of Canadians having surgery up there. I mentioned I had a Canadian friend who had a 3 part bowel surgery done recently, with very reasonable waiting times, and that of my several dozen Canadian friends, all but one was satisfied with their system, and he was just like, well, that's anecdotal, the statistics don't bear that out. That's not true at all, but he wouldn't hear of it.
Even before my health problems started, I was pro-single payer. But people like my classmate are everywhere, and seem to think that health care SHOULD be expensive and hard to get. It's inordinately cruel.
I've lived here all my life, but I'm actually moving out of state next month partially because my state's refusing to accept federal funds to cover my demographic next year, and I can't live without the medication I'm on. (Plus going to college out of state is cheaper than going to college in state (!). And they wonder why they have such a brain drain problem...)
1. You do not get to decide for me who and what I am or what I identify as. What the hell makes you think that you have the right and the might to tell me who I'm supposed to be?
You can say that--according to your definition of it--Christianity is about being kind to others. Ok. Whatever. That doesn't make me a Christian. And you definitely don't get the right to call me one. (I'm an atheist.)
2. It's funny you mention India. Feminists lobbied heavily (and successfully) for only one biological sex to be legally able to be booked for rape. Spoilers: it wasn't women.
I'll be the judge of that.
Wow, ego. Do you also tell trans people to go kill themselves?
I'm an egalitarian, because I believe in equal rights for all people, not just one biological sex.
Unless you're a cis female, feminism is very hostile to you. Since I am GLBT, I find egalitarianism much more appealing for this reason as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking#Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_...
Obviously, no scientist or engineer has ever stopped to ask themselves "why does it..." or "what if it doesn't actually do..." or "maybe it's not x, but y instead?"
It'd be wise to remember that the sciences were once called "natural philosophy."
Liberal arts courses on the other hand are mostly memorization and regurgitation of the ideology currently favored by the academia's current regime. Before they moved to "~ studies" majors, liberal arts majors used to study the works written and drawn by scientists and mathematicians and engineers. It's easy to see why the humanities would prefer "critical thinking" to be redefined as something fuzzy enough to require no original thought or even an attempt at reaching a logical conclusion.
I don't know if you've noticed, but your school costs $60,000/year now.
http://www.syr.edu/financialaid/costofattendance/
For comparison purposes, a minimum wage worker employed full-time (forty hours per week for 52 weeks), would earn $15,080 annually. Are you seriously suggesting that someone work for four years in between each year of their college education?
I'm also not sure why you think critical thinking skills are something that math and science don't require. If you don't have critical thinking skills, you'll have a hard time engineering anything that works or mathing out something correctly. What makes this biased assumption especially weird is the fact that you can actually check whether someone critical thought something out or not to a correct conclusion in the science and math fields. If anything, it's the humanities that need to prove they've anything to contribute to their students' critical thinking skills, because the job market seems to be finding them lacking lately.
There are a lot of four year programs that teach nothing more than bland repetition of "white cis straight male bad, trans queer POC woman good" these days. And I say that as someone in several of the latter groups!
Since California clearly didn't want me, I'm going to NY instead now, since they are very friendly to OOS students. (At my public college, tuition is basically free for me after the first year, and even the first year where I have to pay OOS tuition it's roughly the same cost as in state tuition in the crappy flyover state I'm in now.) California should really think about revising their financial aid and tuition policies if they want to be known for being anything other than someplace only the rich can afford. I guess the days of colleges being known and valued for the academic merits of their students are over.
The world would be a much better place if people understood this. (Incidences of terminal depression might decrease, too.)
Some of them still haven't read Orwell.
Science still has legitimate frontiers. English, in many instances, does not.
Now they sit around their parents house whenever they're not at their part time retail job and complain about how "the economy" screwed them over.
This exactly. This sort of lie about college--that it doesn't matter what the cost is--is perpetuated by meaningless and empty platitudes. Unlike many others of the kind, however, it has the potential to permanently destroy a young person's life. High school guidance counselors whose parents paid for their education still continue to advise kids without any parental support that they should spend as much money as possible to get the "best" education they can afford. It's cruelty of the highest form: apathy towards those from lesser circumstances than you.
Interestingly, a lot of the people you'd revere and read and study in an English class are people who had no formal English training whatsoever, or maybe high school level at best. It's only in recent years that colleges have managed to spread the myth that you can't have really learned something if you didn't pay $100,000 to do it. To me, it's just silly.
They are--which is, luckily, one of many reasons I placed out of them.
"A good professor wants to teach you that Frankenstein is an allegory for the Industrial Revolution, or the creation of Man; a great professor knows the conversation that Shelley had with Chaucer and Milton and everyone in between..."
Or they could write a book and you could read it for free at the library, or online. Why limit knowledge to people who have $50,000/year to blow on college? Not everyone is rich and upper class. Can only people from well off families become "properly" educated? I've met a lot of educated people from all walks of life, and all levels of education. To me, at least, intelligence and a drive to learn are far greater indicators of someone's likely degree of sophistication than how much their parents spent on their four year vacation to some over priced campus.
Well taught classes are a nice idea, but most people will never have access to a good teacher, much less a good classroom environment. I've had good teachers but a ruined class experiment by sufficiently unprepared or even just unintelligent classmates.
There's nothing magical about college. You can do just as well with finding informed and (likely more enthused, even) peers at a open access book club, if not the often maligned internet forums dedicated to literature.
I've seen too many english and other writing intensive liberal arts majors graduate without knowing the difference between your and you're, its and it's, to really have any respect for the degree. Oddly, my scientist friends have few problems with attention to detail and understanding basic syntax, despite not spending four years on mastering the subject. I suspect this is because they already mastered it in high school, if not earlier, much like myself.
If you have to go to college to learn, you're doing it wrong. (And these days--also very expensively.)
It makes it so that actual victims of sexual assault/rape/sexism/homophobia/etc can't talk about their experiences, because there's no way to distinguish between say people with ptsd!triggers and the people with omg-someone-disagreed-with-me!triggers. I hate it so much.
The type of women in tech we need are normal people who don't social justice blog for 14 hours a day on their tumblr about how oppressed they are. Oddly, the women who end up in tech are more likely to be the women who did their STEM classes/homework for 14 hours a day, so in the end it usually works out.