What's the bigger WTF - the student or the college who rewards mediocrity with a degree?


  • Considered Harmful

    @boomzilla said:

    @dhromed said:
    @boomzilla said:
    They haven't been proven wrong, either.

    You're saying you don't have eyes and ears and have no way of directly experiencing people?

    I don't think that's what I said. Maybe it shows up differently on your screen.

    Maybe it depends on if you're the stereotypical person who frets about a stereotype not being correct for every person and therefore think it's an injustice to notice typical things about certain types of people. In case you were wondering, that's not me, though I think people who think like that are probably trying to over compensate for their embarrassment over judging and categorizing people, as opposed to keeping an open mind about judgments and categorizations.

    notthisshitagain.jpg


  • @boomzilla said:

    I don't think that's what I said. Maybe it shows up differently on your screen.
     

    The point being that your statement is equivalent to "The claim that the sky is green has not been proven wrong!" which would require but a pair of working eyes to adequately dismantle.

    It's really weird to say that "stereotypes haven't been proven wrong".

    Stereotyping, though.

    @boomzilla said:

    notice typical things about certain types of people.

    What's a types of people?

    Is the active group at TDWTF a type of person? Are we the same type, Boomy McZilla? Having a few things in common (like programming, and being able to type coherently on an interwebs forum) does not a type make. Is there a chart I can pull up to learn about the agreed-upon number of personality- and life aspects that constitute "same type", "similar type", "different type"?

    I'm not a type. You're not a type. Thinking in types is just going to degrade your interaction with people.

    @boomzilla said:

    I think people who think like that are probably trying to over compensate for their embarrassment over judging and categorizing people, as opposed to keeping an open mind about judgments and categorizations.

    Why are these things opposed? Perhaps you are currently subtly dismissing their position based on a stereotypical idea you have of their person? *vast winky emoticon in jpeg format* (*)

     

     

     

    (*) Ben or Lorne or Heffe. This is your cue.**

     

    **) that's no moon....



  • @joe.edwards said:

    notthisshitagain.jpg
     

    Different, more pleasing content is but a click away!

    (porn)



  • @boomzilla said:

    @dhromed said:
    @Master Chief said:
    I'll stop enforcing stereotypes when they stop being proven correct.

    Good. No stereotype has ever been proven to be correct. You can stop.

    They haven't been proven wrong, either. I'll allow it, although I'm mostly curious to hear about how one goes about enforcing a stereotype.

    Put that fork down until you upload to Instagram you ironic bastard!

    You stereotypical racist Republican you... I love when people claim that all Republicans are racist/discriminatory/close-minded. After all, we all know that deep down, all Democrats are more racist/discriminatory/close-minded.

    Wait, does this mean I have to photograph my lunch now? Damnit..


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I don't think that's what I said. Maybe it shows up differently on your screen.

    The point being that your statement is equivalent to "The claim that the sky is green has not been proven wrong!" which would require but a pair of working eyes to adequately dismantle.

    It's really weird to say that "stereotypes haven't been proven wrong".

    Stereotyping, though.

    I don't get what you're doing there. If you mean to say that a counter example disproves a stereotype, then I'd agree with you. But if you mean that stereotypes are never accurate for a preponderance of the people targeted, then I'd disagree with you.

    @dhromed said:

    Is the active group at TDWTF a type of person?

    I'd say...we're people who have some sort of an IT background, like to argue / troll online.

    @dhromed said:

    Are we the same type, Boomy McZilla?

    Indeed, Dhrome-dildo.

    @dhromed said:

    Having a few things in common (like programming, and being able to type coherently on an interwebs forum) does not a type make. Is there a chart I can pull up to learn about the agreed-upon number of personality- and life aspects that constitute "same type", "similar type", "different type"?

    I guess we recognize a stereotype when we see one. No, there isn't some threshold. It's whatever it is.

    @dhromed said:

    I'm not a type. You're not a type. Thinking in types is just going to degrade your interaction with people.

    We're lots of different types. We all judge people around us quickly. Some of us can't or won't look past those first impressions. Some of those first impressions are correct, some aren't. Not thinking in types probably means you're either not aware or honest about how you think, or there's something very different (possibly defective..e.g., severely autistic) about you.

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I think people who think like that are probably trying to over compensate for their embarrassment over judging and categorizing people, as opposed to keeping an open mind about judgments and categorizations.

    Why are these things opposed? Perhaps you are currently subtly dismissing their position based on a stereotypical idea you have of their person?

    Yes. They seem dishonest to me. We all judge, and that's a good thing. We often need to do so without sufficient information, and we have to fill in the blanks. Denying that we do this by categorizing people based on our experiences is denying reality. Refusing to accept additional information and act upon it is a bad thing, as is over reacting when making a judgment without sufficient information.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    Tattoo stereotypes:



  • @boomzilla said:

    If you mean to say that a counter example disproves a stereotype, then I'd agree with you. But if you mean that stereotypes are never accurate for a preponderance of the people targeted, then I'd disagree with you.
     

    Stereotypes are never accurate period. All people that you initially lump into the stereotype will eventually turn out to be counterexamples. And since there's no definitive authority on the description of any stereotype, we can't even weakly say that statistically one of the group might be an exact fit.

    So no. 

    @boomzilla said:

    We all judge, and that's a good thing. Denying that we do this by categorizing people based on our experiences is denying reality.
     

    We do. I'm not denying this. But I'm surprised you say it's a good thing. There's no reason to categorize people. What do you gain from doing this? You're not going to use the stereotype for anything, and as you spend more time with the person(s), you'll change most or all of your ideas about the people anyway, so the initial stereotype wasn't terribly useful, was it?

    @boomzilla said:
    we have to fill in the blanks.

    Let them be blanks.

    To be specific: don't say dumb shit like I BET YOU PLAY FUNK! to a black guy who's in a band. Instead, say: WHAT DO YOU PLAY? Is this a strange thing to want? Is this an unrealistically high bar to set? I would hope not.

    @boomzilla said:

    Refusing to accept additional information and act upon it is a bad thing, as is over reacting when making a judgment without sufficient information.

    Yep. See earlier. As with many things, it's possible that we agree in the general sense, but disagree on which side of the fence a certain occurrence falls. By the ancient discussion-as-combat rules, I am obliged to say that you are wrong in these matters, of course.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Tattoo stereotypes:

     

    stereotypes are good for humor, though.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:


    Tattoo stereotypes:

     

    stereotypes are good for humor, though.

     

    According to that chart, I will never have a job that pays taxes. So I should be getting a pretty big refund soon, if I'm understanding this correctly.


  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:

    Tattoo stereotypes:

     

    stereotypes are good for humor, though.

     

    According to that chart, I will never have a job that pays taxes. So I should be getting a pretty big refund soon, if I'm understanding this correctly.

    Does anyone have suggestions as to what I should do to end up in prison?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    Stereotypes are never accurate period.

    And you can demonstrably prove this, I guess.

    @dhromed said:

    There's no reason to categorize people. What do you gain from doing this?

    The immediate thing that pops to mind is personal safety in public places. Or even in non-public places. Strange, disheveled man knocks on your door at night. Group of rowdy youths congregating on a street corner.

    Betting on boxing: at lower weights, bet on the Mexican, blacks are better by the time you get to middle weight, though you can't dismiss white guys from Eastern Europe.

    @dhromed said:

    To be specific: don't say dumb shit like I BET YOU PLAY FUNK! to a black guy who's in a band. Instead, say: WHAT DO YOU PLAY? Is this a strange thing to want? Is this an unrealistically high bar to set? I would hope not.

    Yes, that's a person being stupid and rude. That dude is probably in a Living Colour cover band.

    @dhromed said:

    By the ancient discussion-as-combat rules, I am obliged to say that you are wrong in these matters, of course.

    I'm sure that's because your wooden shoes are uncomfortable when you ride your bike to the windmill to water your tulip garden.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Strange, disheveled man knocks on your door at night.

    @boomzilla said:

    Group of rowdy youths congregating on a street corner.

    In both of those cases, the stereotype has made things worse, so I'll pocket that point, thank you very much.

    @boomzilla said:

    I'm sure that's because your wooden shoes are uncomfortable when you ride your bike to the windmill to water your tulip garden.

    As a representative of the department of Euro-weenies, I take offense at that comment and demand reparations.

    I don't yet know in what form.

    These walnuts I got are from the USA, according to the label, so another sack might do.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Strange, disheveled man knocks on your door at night.

    @boomzilla said:

    Group of rowdy youths congregating on a street corner.

    In both of those cases, the stereotype has made things worse, so I'll pocket that point, thank you very much.

    In what way? In any case, please don't put any of that in your pocket. You don't know where they've been.

    I've probably over emphasized the usefulness of stereotypes in my zeal to argue on the Internet. But I think they're less harmful than you're representing (and still somewhat useful in the absence of sufficient information when you need to make a decision). That's probably my real point. And that they're more valuable when they actually are based on first hand experience, as opposed to something more like an urban legend.



  • @boomzilla said:

    In any case, please don't put any of that in your pocket. You don't know where they've been.
     

    You're not my dad. You're someone else's dad. 

    @boomzilla said:

    I've probably over emphasized the usefulness of stereotypes in my zeal to argue on the Internet. But I think they're less harmful than you're representing (and still somewhat useful in the absence of sufficient information when you need to make a decision). That's probably my real point.
     

    Let us awkwardly shake hands across this chasm.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I've probably over emphasized the usefulness of stereotypes in my zeal to argue on the Internet. But I think they're less harmful than you're representing (and still somewhat useful in the absence of sufficient information when you need to make a decision). That's probably my real point. And that they're more valuable when they actually are based on first hand experience, as opposed to something more like an urban legend.


    The problem is that you are only thinking of it from the perspective of the person making the choice. The problems come when you examine things either from the perspective of society as a whole, or from the perspective of the person negatively affected by the stereotype.

    Let's take the example of the rowdy youths for example. Sure, if we posit that 10% of young people gathered in loud an raucous groups are up to no good, that's a valid stereotype. One bad personal experience can lead you to rightly decide to avoid such groups in the future.

    However, if we extend that decision to say that the community should enforce a no-loitering policy for groups of young people larger than 3, we begin to have a problem. Not only for kids who just want to hang out after school, but also for what it does to society to unfairly and unjustly punish innocents simply because they belong to a group with an associated stereotype.

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Snooder said:

    The problem is that you are only thinking of it from the perspective of the person making the choice.

    Only in the sense that I was arguing the benefits. Namely that there could be some. I never argued that there was no downside.

    @Snooder said:

    The problems come when you examine things either from the perspective of society as a whole, or from the perspective of the person negatively affected by the stereotype.

    Yes, I definitely agree.

    @Snooder said:

    However, if we extend that decision to say that the community should enforce a no-loitering policy for groups of young people larger than 3, we begin to have a problem. Not only for kids who just want to hang out after school, but also for what it does to society to unfairly and unjustly punish innocents simply because they belong to a group with an associated stereotype.

    Yes. Laws should be scrutinized with a lot more care than personal decisions that must be made quickly.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yes. Laws should be scrutinized with a lot more care than personal decisions that must be made quickly.


    Well, it's not just laws. People should also take care not to hurt other people or alienate others with their personal decisions. Not out of some vague sense of altruism, but because if you, personally, try not hurt someone else, then that provides a reason for that person not to hurt you in turn, or even help you out.



  • @Master Chief said:

    I was going to respond to this by pointing out you were calling me an ageist after a story about a fellow college aged student, but you then decided to judge me based on my age in the same comment, so...yeah, that's a thing, I suppose. Good work.
     

     Actually, I was pointing that your comment has a strong leaning towards proposing a direct relationship between age and technical incompetence (although to be fair, you did not state such explicitly).

     



  • @Algorythmics said:

    Whenever I read this comment it makes me think your mother has some kind of ingenius interpreter set up such that when she moves an iron (a big one, obviously) around on an ironing board, it emits SQL.

     

    She probably would have called on a mechanical engineer to help with the position sensors, but would be fully capable of turning out a perfectly crisp blouse while debugging a stored procedure ...

     



  • @dhromed said:

    being able to type coherently on an interwebs forum
     

    That's quite a leap ...

     


Log in to reply