cryptopsyfan69420
Posts 6
Comments17
His response is so uncharitable and demeaning I'm not sure it's worth Larks' time and effort to respond.
That's just Red's mannerisms, he's just saying it because he likes being humorous. He's a pretty nice guy, though if he were writing this response right now it'd be a lot more smartassy.
That's the entirety of his response to what Larks pointed out, a confusion I share.
Well he did address (most) of his arguments, despite his memey attitude. I don't think being a bit of a dick negates any arguments he made.
What do you think of his original post?
He wrote a response on his forum:
https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?p=52461#p52461
Do you agree with the rest of his post?
I think I understand what you're saying, so I think the best response to that deontological thinking is to explain how use does not equate to abuse. Similar to how many animal rights advocates make the mistake of thinking that using animals for something is inherently bad, that way of thinking completely ignores the consequences of the actions. The workers are benefitting as well.
This article snippet explains it well:
https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/Sweatshop_Products#Distinction_with_Animal_Agriculture
Those papers do seem interesting to look into, I'll read 'em when I get the chance.
Your argument is that you don't have to go to college to be a successful. Therefore, you probably shouldn't go to college.
Actually, my argument was that people in general shouldn't go to college because they'll major in useless crap. I don't really think anyone should major in art stuff frankly (and other things).
You COULD be successful, but in this day and age college is a waste of time for arts (as I said, you do better by doing things you like and going at your own pace rather than doing something some pretentious jackoff assigned to you. Also should mention you learn more by DOING rather than just "practicing").
Not using your right hand is a hindrance. Going to art school is a hindrance.
A better argument would be: The benefit gained from getting an art degree is not worth the cost of college.
That was my point though. You may have just misinterpreted.
the numbers would probably suggest that college is a good investment (even for art majors).
How?
Nathan I tire of this little debacle, either concede that 99% of art degrees are a waste of time and money, or just gunnae drap it.
You explicitly say at the start of your video that you recommend people go into psychology...
Right but I also said in my response to you:
"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology
You also use images of art supplies in your video whenever you say the word "art".
It was a type of shorthand. I actually wanted to use other pictures for "studies" degrees but Pixabay is fairly limited.
It seems goal-post shifting to now claim you were actually referring to liberal arts in general.
I thought it was implied when I said art degree and when I didn't mention things like "studies" degrees in majors I recommend .
It also doesn't at all address the fact that most college students don't go to private universities.
Of course, but most major in (not very useful) art degrees and many have crushing debt, unable to pay back loans.
I don't have to use my right hand to be successful. But it would be silly to make a video called "You (Probably) Shouldn't Use Your Right Hand".
Sure you could learn how to use your left hand, but it's an impedes progress and doesn't really help you much in achieving your goals. Like art school.
It is misleading. The title is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College." But you complain specifically about arts, language, and literature majors at private universities. This is not most people who go to college.
It's actually for most art degrees in general, which includes nonsense degrees like "Gender Studies" and most sociology. Since these things are soft sciences they're counted as art degrees instead of proper STEM.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37
Most of these are not STEM or Med-School.
"Social sciences" and a lot of psychology are soft sciences, and possibly even pseudosciences.
Asserting that humanities professors are pretentious jackoffs with dumbass interpretations is more easily interpreted as angry venting than as reasonable argument.
I'm not sure how else to explain it then. It's self-evident.
Think of it like this: People care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
Did you have to in order to become a successful musician?
First, the video seems contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. For example, the title of the video is "You (Probably) Shouldn't Go To College" even though you seem to limit your criticisms to art, language, and literature majors at private universities. In other words, you clickbaited the title so people would go in looking for an angry disagreement.
Of course it's clickbait, and I don't see anything wrong with using clickbait titles as long as they aren't misleading. I didn't intend for people to go in angry just looking at the title, and I don't think people would go in negatively.
If I titled it "You Definitely Shouldn't Go to College" or just "You Shouldn't Go To College" that certainly would be considered misleading. The title more expresses my view that college is not a good idea for most people (and I believe Trade School is a much better and more useful option).
This is even more obvious towards the end of your video where you say that in your experience people who teach humanities subjects are "pretentious jackoffs" who have "dumbass" interpretations. It's hard to interpret this as a good-faith argument about why people in general shouldn't go to college.
...Are you disagreeing with that analysis?
Second, you present zero evidence for any claims you make. Your video is a list of assertions. You talk about doing a cost-benefit analysis, but then you handwave numbers out of nowhere. Your video doesn't leave me feeling confident that you've looked at the data on the job prospects of those with vs without college degrees.
Well I'm actually not confident that you've watched the video in its entirety (or you misunderstood me to an extent).
Do you NEED an art degree to become a successful artist? Especially nowadays considering how accessible all these resources are? Maybe a few decades ago, but nowadays it's much easier (and cheaper) to learn the arts.
Now ask, do you NEED a STEM degree to go into science/engineering? Well you'll probably remember nothing of what you learned after five years, but a job in that field actually requires the piece of paper. Is it stupid? Probably, but that's how it is. I didn't make the rules.
Think of it like this: Let's say I'm making a video game and you need someone to compose music for it. I don't care if you graduated top of your class with a music degree from Julliard, since it tells me nothing about what type of music you're capable of composing. I'd much rather see previous music you've composed, since that'd actually give me information about your musical talents.
When we compare Art vs STEM, there are some key reasons as to why it's better to major in the latter. Art as I implied can be made at home; Not everyone has the budget and resources to build science labs.
I understand that the style of your video isn't a lecture that's comprehensively reviewing the research. But I think that's exactly the problem. Not that every video has to be a lecture. But I would like to see fewer uncharitable, uninformed Angry Rant videos on the EA Forum.
Not to disrespect anyone here but I think too many members in the movement are too passive and unwilling to cross the line deliberately. Sometimes you need a good asshole to get some things done.
He requested I copy and paste his reponse here to make sure you and others see it.
I can say these sentences certainly are memes.
OK
I mean that's kinda what the biggest banks in the world do. Every major multinational bank on the planet is riddled with scandals and controversies.
Also regarding terrorist organizations:
https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/re ... ugs-889170
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stand ... s-4339bfd0
I'm sure they do, but where's the money in that right now? Very little compared to the fossil fuel industries. This will likely change in the future, but that will be the result of legislation and general systemic change, not likely to be from working at such companies.
Of course banks are important, I was more referring to working a job that deals mostly with the scumbags. But while they are important, even putting aside the shady stuff, working in one mostly just makes you a middle-man; Hard to say if someone of fair intelligence and ability is necessarily reaching their potential working such a job.
I'm not sure if you read my whole post because I mentioned encouraging people to use local banks, which will likely act more ethically. Might not be possible for everyone, but it is for a lot of people who do use these banks. The less power they have, the better.
And really it's probably beneficial to the customers too since from what I can tell these big banks give their customers little interest, charge them a fee for using the bank, then invest in other evil industries.
I think you're just mad
Still both in the six figures range, and plenty of room for increasing income. I am wondering, do you support more STEM and Medicine people? I would argue that any extra money made by someone in finance is far offset by a STEM/Medicine person since their careers contribute very positively in the world and working at a big bank is not so good.
Frankly the fact that the people working in finance make so much money is a cause for concern and shouldn't be a reality at all, at least with how they're currently getting their money.