Sounds like an exercising in rearranging the furniture on the Titanic to me.

In a world where discrimination and separatism is qualitatively and quantitatively on the rise, people in charge must be ecstatic that they can appease people without having to do anything meaningful that might piss off the extremists on the right, or "shareholders". And people are so used to being told that change is only possible through incremental adjustments that they'll eat it up like candy and think this is progress.

"People people people, if you're going to call someone a filthy tranny and throw fast food at xem on public transport, at least use the proper pronoun when you verbally abuse xem."

When there's a hole in the boat and you're taking on water, the least of your concerns should be about what language you use to describe the in-rushing water or shape of the hole, nor arguing over the colour of the material you use to repair it.

I'm sure some people will see this as a victory. Until next time they apply for a job and not get hired due to transphobia. And the manager of the company, with a gleam in their eye, begins the rejection letter with 'Dear bun/bunself', then sniggers to themselves and says "fucking trannies."

What I'm trying to say was summed nicely in a tweet i saw the other day:
ALTRIGHT/NEO NAZI: your all going to the gas chambers!!!
NEOLIBERAL: you're*

If this is the extent of what activism is able to achieve, i should say that the establishment/elite have won by pacifying and declawing the protesters. It's no longer about breaking the shackles of oppression. We can't go around breaking shackles everywhere - think of the effect on the economy? And what about people getting hit by shrapnel? No, instead the LGBTQ community will be given multi coloured chains, the black community will be given slightly longer chains, and we'll pad the shackles with silk so that everyone is much more comfortable. Don't complain about the concept of being chained, instead complain that your chain is not as nice as the next guy's chain.

It's as though the great struggle of protest and civil disobedience has been taken over by the liberal intelligentsia, and the worst kind of discrimination faced by a 20 year old middle-class university student with rainbow coloured dreadlocks and a nose piercing is the letter they receive about their student loan that begins "dear sir/madam". So they go out and march about it and think they've made progress when they get their own pronoun. In their life, in their experiences, they are treated equally in other respects, so they think they ARE fighting inequality.

But for the working class male or female transsexual who gets filthy looks and a seat isolated by themselves on public transport, to travel to their entry level job where they've been skipped over for promotion for not looking the part, or getting the right level of respect from the trans-phobic staff, getting snide whispered comments from customers about the size of their hands, getting abuse yelled at them as they travel to have a night out at the ONLY trans-friendly bar within a 20 mile radius....... I get the feeling that receiving a letter with the correct pronoun isn't exactly going to change their fucking lives.

To remove a weed, you go for the roots. Some wanker calling you him/her when you prefer bun/bunself is not the root of this problem. The problem is that they are trans-phobic, not the language - which is just the tool they use to discriminate against you. To change the language and think that you've won is a bit like redefining room temperature and claiming you've warmed everybody by a few degrees.

If you march for equal rights, fair pay, fair treatment then people are going to see that and join your protest because they also want those things. Those things will solve the problems faced by the trans community, feminists, masculinists, minorities alike! And through common goals and by supporting each other en masse for simple, unified goals like EQUALITY, progress will be made, change will happen. It is a concept called solidarity and seems to be going out of fashion, but our grandparents knew.

The objective for the establishment is to drive a wedge between groups of people so that their demands are more manageable, and they can be turned on each other. Feminists, masculinists, LGBT, everyone... can't you see how better off you'd be marching together for common values that lie at the core of what every human wants?

Wall of text, sorry... and I know it looks like i'm being insensitive. So congratulations, genuinely, for getting someone to use your preferred pronoun if that makes you feel better. But whilst people have been fighting tooth and nail to get their own pronoun (in civilised settings only), we've suffered huge leaps backwards in freedom and tolerance behind their backs whilst they were bent over intently concentrating on the finer detail of what their ideal equality looks like.

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TEDx' to 'TEDx, Sajay Samuel, college, debt, university, student loan, TED' - edited by eric3579

I think the biggest thing that is upsetting millennials is the cost of college. Bill is a comedian, I get that, but if he doesn't comprehend that many kids are entering a mediocre job market with 60k or more of student loans riding on their backs, then he is very out of touch.

Of course there are other options, like skilled trades such as the ones Mike Rowe tries to educate teens about, but the reality is that if you go to college on your own dime today, you are going to have a ton of debt by the time you get out. I got my degree back in the 90's on pell grants and money I got from working outside of school. There is absolutely no way I could have afforded it if I was going to college today. I also would have balked at putting myself deep in debt to go.

Title, description and video hardly tell the real story.

"But according to the U.S. Marshals Service, there was a bit more to Aker’s story that wasn’t told on air.

According to the feds Aker had a warrant for his arrest and that he had been dodging them for some time.

The U.S. Marshals Service noted Tuesday that they have been given the responsibility for service of civil processes as directed by the federal court system. These civil processes can include summons for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal student loans.

"Since November 2012, U.S. Marshals had made several attempts to serve a show cause order to Paul Aker to appear in federal court, including searching at numerous known addresses. Marshals spoke with Aker by phone and requested he appear in court, but Aker refused. A federal judge then issued a warrant for Aker's arrest for failing to appear at a Dec. 14, 2012, hearing," the agency said in a statement Tuesday.

"It is the responsibility of the U.S. Marshals to serve civil processes at direction of the federal courts. These civil processes include summonses for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal loans, including student, agricultural and other loans made by federal agencies."

When officials made contact with him on Feb. 11, the U.S. Marshals said that they only sent two agents to his door. They say that when they attempted to arrest him, Aker resisted and retreated back into his home.

"The situation escalated when Aker verbally said to the deputies that he had a gun. After Aker made the statement that he was armed, in order to protect everyone involved, the deputies requested additional law enforcement assistance. Additional deputy marshals and local law enforcement officers responded to the scene. After approximately two hours, the law enforcement officers convinced Aker to peacefully exit his home, and he was arrested without further incident," the agency said in a statement.

The statement from the U.S. Marshals noted that here in Houston some 1,500 people have been identified for not appearing in court to address outstanding federal student loans.

These are likely extreme cases that have been drawn out for some time though. It's still recommended that debtors pay back their loans as quick as they can.
A judge has now issued warrants for the arrest of these people. Marshals say that every attempt is made to inform individuals of their initial summons before it comes to what Aker faced. "
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/US-Marshals-say-man-wasn-t-arrested-because-he-6834620.php

Very interesting, but I disagree with one aspect of what she is saying:

Yes, we're all sort of ignorant blank slates at that age (college entry). But she is suggesting that professors / instructors / parents / etc. are or should be responsible for curing us of that. I think that is bunk. Life itself, and in particular being responsible for one's own life, is what cures us of that ignorance.

Society tells all these kids that they cannot and will not accomplish anything without having a college education -- WAY more than it ever did in the past. A big percentage take that to heart, and therefore stay under the sheltered wing of their parents longer because they feel that they MUST.

I think once they get out into the real world, that ignorance and idealism will get quickly tempered with a dose of pragmatism. Being hyper-PC seems less important when you've got to work a double shift to pay your rent or buy luxuries like food. ...Or pay off staggering amounts of student loan debt.

I like to imagine that this was a final presentation for a scientific course. Everyone loved her wit and charm but she flunked out and still has to pay student loans on top of that. Now in an attempt to share her story, she realized stand up comedy at ah hoc speech events gives her more basic satisfaction.

You might have a point if the entire system wasn't rigged to create lower socioeconomic people...

Stagnant wages, government protectionism to convince everyone it's still okay, huge companies employing tens of thousands on pay that doesn't get them above the poverty line.

There is a huge strata in the US demographic where people are scraping by day to day and literally grasp at straws just to get a normal life, not a rich one. And when their kids grow up? Will their parents be able to chip in for tuition, or will they still be servicing their own student loans?

ps. You're confusing greed with desire, or even need. Greed is sitting down to dinner and taking everyone else's meal. Desire is wanting to be at least fucking invited to the table. Need is being left out in the cold for so long you're starving to death. It's fucking hard to be greedy when you have almost nothing.

I was able to pay off my student loans in a couple years because I got a decent job that had nothing to do with my college education.

Families are now too poor to send their children to college - no one has that kind of money - Student loans are the only choice for the majority of the population.
A select few will also be able to apply for loans and bursaries, but lets be fair, those will only cover partial costs, even then, student loans will be needed to cover the balance owing.

It took me 13 years to pay back my student loan after five years of education.
I got off lucky.
A lot of "sad but true," here.

@Lawdeedaw

If you're studying something like engineering, there is a high likelihood that you will retain employment that will pay off a student loan over the next 10-20 years. Even if it's not your first preference, you will be employed somewhere with a reasonable income with such technical skills.

The government can play a useful role in amortizing your income. There's really no reason to be frugal and Starbucks aside, policy that forces you to work long hours in a dead-end job while studying to make ends meet is counter-productive as it reduces your long-term income. Not being able to even enrol because you're too poor, despite how smart you may be is also hugely destructive. This is why study assistance subsidies are such good policy. Them aside, you still have to clothe, house and feed yourself anyway.

Even if you say that there will be dropouts, fails, people who complete degrees with no job demand, you simply adjust up the interest rate you charge everyone for student debt to account for that loss. Then you have a mandatory contribution from any income you make above X amount that the student has to repay after they conclude their study. This way students can't simply retain a large debt with a low interest rate forever and subsidise everyone else by paying theirs off.

Also to incentivise correct course choice, you subsidise courses with skills in short supply/in demand more than those with good job prospects and a generally high expected income.

This is pretty much what we have in Australia under the HECS system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_education_fees_in_Australia#HECS

It would be great if the US had something similar (because designed well it pays for itself), but the cultural obsession much of the country seems to have with total laissez faire, 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps', even when it's not good policy makes it impossible.

Considering right now US Treasury bond rates (government borrowing rates) are at 60 year lows, it's doubly stupid.

@A-Winston @lantern53

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

I'll simplify it for you - those who are not well educated in a subject greatly overestimate their ability at the subject, because they don't know all of the things that they don't know.

Those who are better educated in a subject greatly underestimate their ability at the subject, because they know how complicated it is.

Now you two don't know about science, and that's ok - that's not an insult and i don't want any of this to be insulting. But it is meant to be a reminder that you are talking about one of if not the most technical and complicated abstract subjects that we as a species pursue. If you don't even understand the "scientific method" (a distinct term) and how the "scientific community" (another distinct term) works and comes to consensus, how can you possibly hope to decipher fact (science) from fiction (propaganda)?

I keep having to post this, but i'll do it again. The scientific community is made up of all kinds of people such as university lecturers and students (yes, your kids might be part of the community), amateur scientists, people at research institutions.... anyone who cares enough to approach things methodically and systematically, anyone interested in finding out as much as we possibly can about everything we can. Real science does not get paid based on results - the funding is provided for the research and the research finds whatever it finds. You can't lie about science, because other anal bastards (far worse than me) are just waiting to find something wrong with it and pillory it. That's how the scientific community works, it's like internet comments only worse. You can't get away with doing bad science for long.

Most people in scientific research do not have a lot of money, do you understand that? I can tell you right now - i contribute to scientific papers and such, so that makes me part of the scientific community. I'm just a post-grad student living on a student loan and doing something that i enjoy. My lecturers make a living, but they are not well-off by any means. We also suffer tax when politicians take our evidence and twist it in front of our faces. And we're left standing here, exasperated, wondering why you'd listen to non-experts over experts. If your doctor said you had diabetes, you wouldn't ask a politician to confirm it? If you want a scientific opinion, consult the scientific community.

I would love you to ask yourself the following question; "What do i really know about the scientific community and the scientific method?" Because if you took half an hour one day to go to an accredited university and ask the science department about how science works, how consensus is formed, and what makes good scientific practice, you'd be able to rid yourselves of these myths that somehow all scientists (i.e. average people, doing scientific research for the sake of science) are in some kind of club or gang or being paid to say that humans are causing climate devastation. The reason the majority of people say that is because the science speaks for itself and is not open to interpretation. The facts are facts.

Are you really thinking this through?

I want to show you one final thing, and it comes from the wikipedia page on Scientific method (which i recommend you read to avail yourself about which you speak, please don't speak from ignorance).

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

The science speaks for itself, and i recommend you start listening to real scientists. Why prefer the opinion of a few individuals who are either flawed in their scientific reasoning or flat out being paid to lie? The scientific community is in full agreement.

Edit: Sorry for the long post, but you're talking about something you don't understand and it exasperates me. You wouldn't come here and talk about the details of internal medicine, but you're quite happy to tell a scientist, to his face, that he doesn't know science.

@Trancecoach - they respond in literature all the time. A scientist's response is to prove it, scientifically. They do, and are, all the time. But most people do not understand science and those that do still find scientific papers daunting and difficult to follow. People like the two i mentioned above, they don't have a hope in hell of understanding the source of the information, and they sadly look to the wrong people to explain it to them.

"Workers in debt are slaves to their employers..."

I'm looking at you, student loans... *promote.

For those who don't know this man (I didn't) he spent 50 years in and out of the British Parliament.

"Anthony Neil Wedgwood "Tony" Benn, PC (3 April 1925 – 14 March 2014), the former 2nd Viscount Stansgate, was a British Labour Party politician who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1950 to 2001 (with two short breaks) and a cabinet minister under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan." /wiki