Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Grey Templar wrote: Look at how many are for underpriviledged people, and note the amounts.
Key point: underprivileged. Do you know what the word means? It means someone who is starting from a lower position, and needs extra help just to get to an equal starting point.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Grey Templar wrote: Look at how many are for underpriviledged people, and note the amounts.
Key point: underprivileged. Do you know what the word means? It means someone who is starting from a lower position, and needs extra help just to get to an equal starting point.
Except in this case they really are at an advantage, not a disadvantage.
because they are underpriviledged in some areas, they recieve a disproportionate advantage in elegibility for scholarships. And as such they end up paying less for college then someone who grew up in a home that was wealthier.
And in the end, the children of the middle class are screwed. And the children of the lower class gain an, almost, free ride.
As such, it is descriminatory to the children of the middle class. Who are rich enough to not qualify for aid, yet still way too poor to afford the education.
Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
Because of this, wouldn't it make more sense for the well being of society to invest more in people that would make the most of their education? And not put the money into those who are less likely to make good use of it. The wealthy don't need any help, and people of lower class may not have the academic aptitude to take full advantage of the opprotunity afforded to them.
The fact they can't take full advantage is a seperate issue. All things related to scholarships should be based solely on academic performance. Seperate measures can be taken to allow academic performance to become more even, but artificially making the situation appear better does nothing to actually fix the problem.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: because they are underpriviledged in some areas, they recieve a disproportionate advantage in elegibility for scholarships. And as such they end up paying less for college then someone who grew up in a home that was wealthier.
Did you know that one of those ways in which they're underprivileged tends to be in family wealth? They tend to get more eligibility for scholarships because, as a group, they don't have the same financial resources from their parents, and without that extra eligibility they're likely to be underrepresented in college.
As such, it is descriminatory to the children of the middle class. Who are rich enough to not qualify for aid, yet still way too poor to afford the education.
Nonsense. Even without scholarships there are these things called student loans. Someone who is genuinely middle class and can't qualify for any need-based financial aid can still get loans to cover whatever their parents can't help with.
Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
*stares in disbelief*
Really? Do you seriously believe that, or are you just doing a bad job of playing devil's advocate?
All things related to scholarships should be based solely on academic performance.
Did you know that the number of qualified students tends to exceed the number of full scholarships a university can afford to offer, especially given the current trend of cutting educational spending to pay for more wars? So, given two students who are both able to succeed in college, it makes sense to give the most financial support to the one who is least able to pay the costs on their own.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Nonsense. Even without scholarships there are these things called student loans. Someone who is genuinely middle class and can't qualify for any need-based financial aid can still get loans to cover whatever their parents can't help with.
Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
That depends on your degree. If you're getting a degree that qualifies you for a good job (engineering, law, etc) then taking on loans is a sensible decision because your expected gain in salary (and ease of finding a job at all) is far more than the added debt. On the other hand, if you're getting one of those degrees that only helps with the generic "must have a college degree" requirement to be a mid-level manager at the local grocery store, well, that's probably a stupid idea.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Grey Templar wrote: Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
Because of this, wouldn't it make more sense for the well being of society to invest more in people that would make the most of their education? And not put the money into those who are less likely to make good use of it. The wealthy don't need any help, and people of lower class may not have the academic aptitude to take full advantage of the opprotunity afforded to them.
No, because intelligence is not defined by economic circumstance. You have some assumptions in their about the various middle and lower class that sound almost caste like.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
That depends on your degree. If you're getting a degree that qualifies you for a good job (engineering, law, etc) then taking on loans is a sensible decision because your expected gain in salary (and ease of finding a job at all) is far more than the added debt. On the other hand, if you're getting one of those degrees that only helps with the generic "must have a college degree" requirement to be a mid-level manager at the local grocery store, well, that's probably a stupid idea.
Mr Hyena wrote: Its foolish taking on loans in this economic climate...you will be in mountains of debt.
That debt will exist in any economic climate. The issue in any economic climate will be whether you can pay for that debt when you leave. And given a decent degree will take four years so it will be a different economic climate when you graduate, and that in the present economic climate you might not be able to find a job and so won't be earning much as it is right now, then for a lot of people a tertiary education is a really good option.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Bromsy wrote:Look, I'm pretty reasonable about this whole thing, but there seems to be a lot of "White men have had it so good for so long that they got nothing to complain about."... but how long does that gak last?
Seriously, when is the last time, outside of a cartoon, where you have seen a bumbling, ignorant character that isn't a white male? I bet it wasn't on prime time TV.
The black guy on The Walking Dead.
In the comics, he's a strong, capable leader. In the TV show, he's a fat, bumbling fool that fumbled keys costing a man his life (maybe) and later, he almost killed himself with the door of a parked car. In fact, the only reason I think his character hasn't been killed off yet is because
Spoiler:
The Governor is going to cut off someone's hand, and I have a feeling that it's not gonna be Rick's as it is in the comics.
Is there a war on men? No not really. Is discrimination and the double standard a thing? Are we drifting from the whole "equality" ideal? Yes absolutely.
I don't think we're drifting from it so much as we're coming to grips with feminine agency.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Bromsy wrote:Look, I'm pretty reasonable about this whole thing, but there seems to be a lot of "White men have had it so good for so long that they got nothing to complain about."... but how long does that gak last?
Seriously, when is the last time, outside of a cartoon, where you have seen a bumbling, ignorant character that isn't a white male? I bet it wasn't on prime time TV.
The black guy on The Walking Dead.
In the comics, he's a strong, capable leader. In the TV show, he's a fat, bumbling fool that fumbled keys costing a man his life (maybe) and later, he almost killed himself with the door of a parked car. In fact, the only reason I think his character hasn't been killed off yet is because
Spoiler:
The Governor is going to cut off someone's hand, and I have a feeling that it's not gonna be Rick's as it is in the comics.
Is there a war on men? No not really. Is discrimination and the double standard a thing? Are we drifting from the whole "equality" ideal? Yes absolutely.
I don't think we're drifting from it so much as we're coming to grips with feminine agency.
Yeah I don't let cast iron skillets in the house any more
It'll all balance out eventually I suppose, this is just the pendulum swinging back and forth till it hits the middle.
Or it'll all go to gak and we'll end up like this:
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Middle Class children are more capable of making the most of a college education due to their economic advantages then someone who was worried about putting food on the table.
I agree, and that's why only the upper class should be admitted to institutions of higher education; seeing as our monetary advantages allow us to succeed.
You middle class folk and your aspirations. In fact, I spoke to Bonnie the other day and she told me one of your kind tried to offer her a glass of wine! The nerve of the man! Only the upper-middle class are fit to serve wine. He was lucky to avoid flagellation!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/23 08:21:35
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/23 12:26:39
Is there a war on men? No not really. Is discrimination and the double standard a thing? Are we drifting from the whole "equality" ideal? Yes absolutely.
I don't think we're drifting from it so much as we're coming to grips with feminine agency.
Yeah I don't let cast iron skillets in the house any more
It'll all balance out eventually I suppose, this is just the pendulum swinging back and forth till it hits the middle.
Or it'll all go to gak and we'll end up like this:
Holy crap, I knew dicorce courts in Aus were bad, but for people on the other side of the world to point out that if things in regard to "gender wars" (what an amusing term) go to gak then "we'll end up like " Australians , then things must be bad....REAL BAD!
Holy double crap, i assumed that picture was from mad max, It better be from mad max or i'll have helped myself to a double does of "looking stupid on dakka".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/23 12:41:01
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Chongara wrote: If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
That right there is a very good point.
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
Chongara wrote: If anything is harming men it's not any kind of discrimination or "war on men" or whatever else the whiners might harp on. It's that we have a rather antiquated, rigid model of masculinity and an unhealthy, irrational resistance to changing it.
I think that is quite true. Men are their own worst enemies when it comes to this. Just talking to a close friend recently, he remarked "for a long time, I thought being a man meant fighting and winning against all other men." I don't think that "king of the mountain" mentality is really some kind of prehistoric, bio-hardwired imperative like we tend to assume these days. Male friendship has been eviscerated by that kind of thinking. I believe that not only the demand for but the widespread acceptance of gay rights is tied to this inasmuch as in previous epochs homosexual relationships could be totally encapsulated within the larger sphere of male friendship. But in these days, male friendship is totally anemic, leaving male romance to fend for itself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/23 16:17:50
Gotta respect anyone that willingly read that whole article. I felt braincells committing suicide after the first two paragraphs.
Anyways. People complaining about Tv stereotypes. About how all white men are violent, High School dropouts, and go to the bar every day, drinking away their crappy job-at-the-mall paycheck with their loser friends and always leave the seat up. I guess that means all white women are promiscuous.
well I have my own study on that. Over the past 3 years, I have asked women if they would hop into bed with me. No takers so far. So this means one of two things:
1) I am Weapon Grade Chick Repellant. Or... And I know this one's a stretch.
2) TV Stereotypes aren't 100% accurate and are just meant for our entertainment, not for some whiny guy to get his shorts in a knot over when he gets mocked indirectly on TV.
Gee I wonder which one....
I think the war on men is nothing more than some whiny guys getting their shorts in a knot because someone that would otherwise be completely irrelevant to their lives said Men aren't the greatest thing to happen to this planet and deserve special treatment.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
But here is a question for you.
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I love being a man. I can do whatever I want, and not have to be worried about being raped, plus, I can piss out of my window if I don't feel like going to the bathroom!
I would enjoy the liberty to wear skirts and other cute things though.
On topic, I've noticed the phenomenon, and although I'm not old enough to make statements about its origins, it's been a long time coming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/23 17:37:59
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
Don't watch those shows except to find who the advertisers are.
Then send letters to the network about why you'r enot watching, and enclose a list of thoese advertisers, that you will be contacting as well.
Send letters to the advertisers stating you will not use their products while they advertise on this show. Instead list the competitors you will be using, maybe permanently.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Would it be socially acceptable to portray a minority with the same exact character?
Could you have a show where the only Black character is a complete and utter moron? How about if he was Latino or Indian?
My guess is there would be an immense amount of outrage. Yet its ok to portray a white guy as being a complete idiot.
Don't watch those shows except to find who the advertisers are.
Then send letters to the network about why you'r enot watching, and enclose a list of thoese advertisers, that you will be contacting as well.
Send letters to the advertisers stating you will not use their products while they advertise on this show. Instead list the competitors you will be using, maybe permanently.
I'd do that, but I don't eat at Tacobell, use feminine hygine products, have ED, or use swiffer sweepers.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
