[wat0n]

It's still basically higher than ever, i.e. hasn't gone done, even excluding grad school.

Right now it's stagnant, and you are not considering tuition costs.

It's an average, yes. Though I imagine the college premium is higher for all types of degrees. Again, compared to historical values.

But it's unlikely it's a profitable investment for all degrees.

Poor people are not a tribe.

I never limited this logic to poor people. The middle and even upper classes can join too.

[Beren]

Which has F all to do with the book.

It was written by an LGBTQ+ person and it's promoted by a Guardian feminist, so I wouldn't expect that much from reading it if I stopped following the Guardian on Facebook because it was all LGBTQ+ and feminist.

[Rugoz]

Right now it's stagnant, and you are not considering tuition costs.

But it's unlikely it's a profitable investment for all degrees.

This is getting off topic. You wrote:

How about underemployment? People pick shitty menial jobs that don't match their now outdated degrees.

My point was that college and higher degree skills are more in demand than ever. Thus "having to do menial tasks" is less of an issue than it has ever been.

I never limited this logic to poor people. The middle and even upper classes can join too.

That's not my understanding of tribalism, but whatever.

Are you really suggesting that transfers to the poor increase political polarization (or whatever gets Trump elected) despite lowering economic inequality?

[wat0n]

This is getting off topic. You wrote:



My point was that college and higher degree skills are more in demand than ever. Thus "having to do menial tasks" is less of an issue than it has ever been.

There are plenty who can't make the switch to a better degree on their own (let alone those who never went to college).

That's not my understanding of tribalism, but whatever.

Are you really suggesting that transfers to the poor increase political polarization (or whatever gets Trump elected) despite lowering economic inequality?

They can increase rent seeking behavior, for sure. As for polarization itself, it depends on more things than just the transfers.

[late]

It was written by an LGBTQ+ person and it's promoted by a Guardian feminist, so I wouldn't expect that much from reading it if I stopped following the Guardian on Facebook because it was all LGBTQ+ and feminist.

So all you have is a lame logical fallacy called Shooting the Messenger, and that is enough for you.

Which tells us you are way out of your depth... And as I pointed out before, there are a bunch of academics and foreign affairs types that say the same thing.

[Beren]

there are a bunch of academics and foreign affairs types that say the same thing.

In which case it's rather unlikely there's anything new in that book anyway, except it was written by a Russian Jewish LGBTQ+ in exile.

[late]

In which case it's rather unlikely there's anything new in that book anyway, except it was written by a Russian Jewish LGBTQ+ in exile.

In any case there is something you badly need to know, and clearly don't.

And if you wouldn't mind, could you leave your various forms of bigotry at the door..

[Beren]

In any case there is something you badly need to know, and clearly don't.

What do you mean?

And if you wouldn't mind, could you leave your various forms of bigotry at the door..

No, I couldn't.

[late]

What do you mean?


No, I couldn't.

I mean forums, and people, have limits.

The most intellectually challenging thing a president has to deal with is foreign affairs. It's why nearly all of them suck at it.

Before the election I knew Trump wanted to be a dictator, and it wasn't just that he liked to pretend he read Hitler's writing. It was a combination of things, personality traits. Oh, f*** it, I realised it when I saw pics of his penthouse. He had it done in Dictator Chic. There was all the other stuff, but that locked down, for me, anyway.

Fiona is the real deal, her book on Putin has been highly praised: "If you want to begin to understand Russia today, read this book."
—Sir John Scarlett, former chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)

Like the guy said, read the damn book..

[Beren]

Like the guy said, read the damn book.

I actually share Schopenhauer's sentiments on reading. I've always needed such a great excuse for rarely feeling like reading books.

[late]

I actually share Schopenhauer's sentiments on reading. I've always needed such a great excuse for rarely feeling like reading books.

Ignorance it is.

[B0ycey]

Ignorance it is.

What is in the book we should know @late? Nobody is reading the book and it would be interesting to know whether you have read it in any case or whether you are reporting something you have read about the book. But even so, it is true that when reading a book you are merely reading the thoughts of someone else which I guess was Berens point. If the motive of the book is biased, you have to consider that when concluding surely.

[Beren]

Ignorance it is.

If you're an avid reader, you actually prove Schopenhauer right.

[late]

What is in the book we should know @late? Nobody is reading the book and it would be interesting to know whether you have read it in any case or whether you are reporting something you have read about the book. But even so, it is true that when reading a book you are merely reading the thoughts of someone else which I guess was Berens point. If the motive of the book is biased, you have to consider that when concluding surely.

Everyone has a bias.

That book is brand new, but I was talking about this, on another forum, 4 years ago. Before that, I was worried about it. I once thought we would never succumb the way Germany did. I slowly came to realise the Germans of a hundred years ago were a lot tougher and more disciplined than we are.

Start here, if you can focus your attention for a few minutes:

https://acoup.blog/2021/01/15/miscellanea-insurrections-ancient-and-modern-and-also-meet-the-academicats/

[B0ycey]

Everyone has a bias.

That book is brand new, but I was talking about this, on another forum, 4 years ago. Before that, I was worried about it. I once thought we would never succumb the way Germany did. I slowly came to realise the Germans of a hundred years ago were a lot tougher and more disciplined than we are.

For an OP, you haven't really addressed the book. There is a vague reference to the Republicans destroying democracy and that America will be run by psychopaths. So what exactly is in the book that says that? Quote it if you feel like. Or just explain why the Republicans are going to ruin democracy if you want to do it that way. But actually provide some context. Because where I am sitting, the Republican SCOTUS rejected the Republican candidates appeal that the election was rigged, that the few idiots that entered the Capitol hadn't a clue what to do next and are heading to jail, the Republicans disowned them and condemned their actions, the Army didn't align to Trump in any way shape or form and Trump left office when Biden was swore in anyway. Those aren't actions of a party rejecting democracy. Those are actions that the legal framework works and even a sore loser won't enact a coup despite his ponzi.

[Beren]

it is true that when reading a book you are merely reading the thoughts of someone else which I guess was Berens point.

My point also is that too much reading is actually brainwashing. And if you like reading rather than thinking for yourself so much, then your brain is a sponge rather than a thinking or thought-making machine.


However, I, like Schopenhauer, admit that even thought-making brains need to be fed with reading sometimes, of course. I, for example, usually read while sitting on the toilet, there's a complete library there.

But browsing the internet can be a lot more useful, interesting, and inspiring or thought-provoking.

[B0ycey]

However, I, like Schopenhauer, admit that even thought-making brains need to be fed with reading sometimes, of course. I, for example, usually read while sitting on the toilet, there's a complete library there.

I am really only aware of this principle due to you posting it. My opinion on the matter is that learning can only be achieved by reading (or teaching) but everyone should be critical of what they have read (taught). There is no bad thing to read and the more you read, the more knowledge you acquire. However when you read you are only reading someone else's thoughts. The idea that this author knows what they are talking about is ignorant that a lot of people will know what they are taking about and being published does make your opinion more valid. Something tells me that Late basically already had the impression the Republicans are going to 'steal' democracy and an author that shares that opinion was always going to be praised from them in any case. But even so I haven't seen evidence that the Republicans are going to shut down democracy and Trump isn't the Republican party anyway. America is so partizan that people seem to align to one party or another and blame the other party of their ills. The truth is both parties are as bad as each other and really it is the system rather than any party that is turning America into a shithole. And unless this book actually addresses that, then really I don't think there is anything new that hasn't been said before.

[Beren]

My opinion on the matter is that learning can only be achieved by reading

I'd rather say reading is for studying, but one can learn in many ways.

[Rancid]

Al hail putin

[Beren]