so... do i have to be a seething, self-loathing, latent homosexual with a terrifying, sociopath wife to get a an army of gay barbarians to dance to gaga outside of my office????

Self-Loathing on a stick.

I'm voting this up pretty much purely because I want to see the discussion on this, not so much because I agree with him.

There are truths in what he says, that those who partook in the riots are self involved, self pitying shits who have no justification for doing what they did.

But... this whole 'how/where you were brought up is no excuse for the way you are' line of thinking is rubbish.

It's much easier to have a sense of worth and see that work = reward equation when you've been brought up in a supportive environment where all your basic needs are taken care of without thought and time is then spent on your self esteem and treating other with respect etc.

If you were brought up in a low income environment with parents who don't have any self esteem themselves and pass on that feeling to their children. If time after time you try to do the right thing or work hard and yet are shot down by negative others in your environment or just otherwise shown that cleaning up or doing work doesn't change your situation much... then yeah, you can start getting a world view that doesn't include making an effort because you've never seen it work, you've never been told that if you try you could actually accomplish something.

Sure you can wheel out examples of hugely successful people who dragged themselves out of such situations, but they are BY FAR in the minority, and come from either pretty exceptional character traits in themselves, or you may find that they had one or two mentors who made a huge difference in how they lead their lives.

So Pat's rant about it all being their fault is not entirely true. It's a case of society as a whole not having in place ways of breaking the shitty cycle of poor, self abusing, self loathing parents = the same type of kids.

If programs of one sort or another can be introduced that can show those kids that hard work can make a difference, that they are worthy, and give them opportunities to use any skills they may have productively, then you CAN stop this sort of mentality. You CAN instil a feeling of pride in your neighbourhood, you CAN reduce this ME ME ME thinking.

Pat's thinking doesn't help anything. To help things he could be starting up some centres to start these things moving in the right direction, he could be volunteering for groups that I'm sure already exist who are trying to do these things, but I'm sure are woefully understaffed.

But no, he'd rather just call them all scum and pretend it's entirely their fault and that his upbringing and education have nothing to do with him living comfortably.

How hard could it be? You show up and communicate information within your field of expertise. The students take it all in. Job done.

It's not that simple.

You would have a very different perspective if you ever tried teaching yourself.

If you were responsible for educating 200 - 300 students with different learning styles, different motivating factors, different attention levels, different levels of discipline, different levels of comprehension, different types of psychology, different levels of intelligence, different levels of interest, different levels of sanity, different stages of physiological development (AKA puberty), etc. you'd get it.

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)

The 'teaching' part is the easiest part of the job. If there weren't so many responsibilities outside of the actual 'teaching', you and chilaxe would have a point. And, I haven't even mentioned dealing with administrators and parents, which is an art in and of itself.

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers. If anything, I think you have first hand experience of what happens when public education is neglected and underfunded. If you get the cuts you want in education, you will be saddling future generations with the same substandard education you experienced growing up. Is that really what you want?

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad (one was a morbidly obese right wing history teacher that spent as much time praising Reagan and Capitalism as he did teaching history, the other was a self-loathing Science teacher who seemed to fear any kind of social interaction). I can think of 14 that were exceptional teachers and human beings - I'm still in touch with a few of them. The rest were competent at their jobs, if not particularly memorable.

I got good grades and received a half scholarship to a prominent west coast university (fight on). Since then I've had the luxury of being able to play music for a living (and occasionally teach or compose). Public education did me a solid.

PS: I like when you share stories from your life with me. I find it much more moving and persuasive than being called a statist idiot.

>> ^sme4r:
Because of my fear of gross fat ghetto people, I don't shop at Walmart if I don't have too, and IF I have to it's usually for ping pong balls at like 2 in the morning. So say what you will, Walmart is America in a box, but like most self loathing Americans, I refuse to identify with the box if anyone is looking.


I, too, have gone to Wal-Mart at two in the morning for ping-pong balls.

Because of my fear of gross fat ghetto people, I don't shop at Walmart if I don't have too, and IF I have to it's usually for ping pong balls at like 2 in the morning. So say what you will, Walmart is America in a box, but like most self loathing Americans, I refuse to identify with the box if anyone is looking.

self loathing is sad. = /

Leviticus. what a great guy. But why don't god botherers heed ALL of his advice, not just the being gay bit.
Off the top of my head:
Where are the animal sacrifices that all God botherers must make to satisfy god
men shouldn't go to church when "unclean"
nor women during their period

men mustn't cut their beards or the sides of their hair

and my favourite:

Christmas trees are expressly forbidden inside a house (at christmas).

Still I'm sure the guy in this video adheres to all of those and would never insult god with, what is clearly a satanic object of a Fraser Fir at Christmas time.

Seriously. if you want to be a bible thumper, stop peddling this evil, nasty, hateful, self=loathing shit. Market church and god bothering for what it really can be good for:

Frienshdip, a sense of community, an identity, a code of conduct and ethics, a sense of purpose, a structure for life, or a path/code to follow for life.

stop peddling "everlasting life" (who the fuck wants to live forever - how boring would that be!), stop peddling sin and self-hate, and all that other shit.

People like this just make me sick and, if there was ever something good to come from religion, it's twats like this that hide it under their veil of control, deceit and passive hatred.

T-top Trans Am, babes, pull tab Stroh's. Self-loathing. Darkness.

Seriously, didn't we leave this kind of sexism behind in the 80s?

I don't fully understand why my fellow white males get so uptight and defensive when it comes to the topic of sexism, racism and other types of prejudice. Is it some kind of misplaced guilt? Is it that we subconsciously know we have a good thing going on and don't want others rocking the boat? Is it that we don't understand the advantages white maleness has bestowed upon us and cannot empathize with those who do not have those advantages? Are we just over-sized monkeys? I really don't know.

I don't think there is anything even vaguely controversial about the points she is making here. Advertising is sleazy. It preys upon our fears and insecurities. It promotes greed and self loathing. It promotes mediocrity in film, news media, television and music. It provides financial support to the worst elements of both government and business. And, it targets men too. How many of you drones use overpriced "Axe" deodorant because your subconscious mind thinks it will get you laid.

This presentation is smart, pithy and right on target. Those who don't get it should keep watching it in a continuous loop until your consciousness evolves to a higher level, you fucking primates.

Play us out Frank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfUB4Wv5ooI

Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Agree to staunchly disagree.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

Agree to staunchly disagree.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?