BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

Larssen wrote:

No actually if you followed my posts in the last few pages it should be abundantly clear that I'm not at all opposed to expressions of identity, I'm also not fond of enforced uniformity. You of all people should be pro-banning uniforms with your individualist outlook. Clothing is a way through which people get to explore their own identity. Let them.

As for school, the purpose is as much education as it is about socialisation. Homeschooling makes people hopelessly detached and while I'm sure individual tutoring can be great (after all that's how the intelligentsia in history were taught too) I don't trust the average parent to have the chops to properly educate their children. I also don't believe the benevolent motive of providing the best education is the primary reason parents choose this option, really. It's about control over their kids.

the children of nobility might have been privately educated, but they were also forced to socialise. learn languages. learn instruments. take up sporting pursuits. go to balls. basically even forced to intermix and marry at age 16-18. their personal tutors were also experts in their fields, if not polymaths and men of learning.

home schooled people in the states come out as maladapts. they look like amish. a parent who can teach their kids french, piano, and algebra, as well as raising their child to be socially fluent and charismatic, is a fucking miracle parent.

Get rid of the guns.

Do something about the proliferation of gangs.

Get rid of uniforms.

a major problem of not having a school uniform is that gang identity works its way into casual dress. not just obvious 'gang colours' but subtler codes and significations, too. people can tell. if you want to encourage people to 'express themselves', you're going to have a hard time keeping the street/their social identity out of that equation. 'dress how you want but absolutely no expressing x y z'. oh and no loud hair colours. oh and if you're black don't wear cornrows, it can be interpreted as racially provocative by the white school board. ok, good luck.

also you say it's about 'expressing themselves'; it's not. children don't clothe themselves. they sure as hell don't pay for those clothes. not having a uniform sounds like a great way to form cliques of haves and have notes, or to make poorer students feel ostracised because they can't afford that must-have pair of yeezy sneakers.

avoid. you are not special. put on the fucking blazer.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-21 10:24:46)

what makes it so much worse is the US college system puts a heavy stress on 'extra-curriculars', which isn't seen elsewhere. imagine being home-schooled and coming up against some high-school valedictorian who has been putting in work on all the after-school clubs and societies. yeah good luck kedddd.

uziq wrote:

the children of nobility might have been privately educated, but they were also forced to socialise.

Well, that, and their teachers were the best and brightest minds in the country. It was aristotle teaching alexander, not papa philip (though he was highly intelligent/genius in his own right, but still).

uziq wrote:

a major problem of not having a school uniform is that gang identity works its way into casual dress. not just obvious 'gang colours' but subtler codes and significations, too. people can tell. if you want to encourage people to 'express themselves', you're going to have a hard time keeping the street/their social identity out of that equation. 'dress how you want but absolutely no expressing x y z'. oh and no loud hair colours. oh and if you're black don't wear cornrows, it can be interpreted as racially provocative by the white school board. ok, good luck.

also you say it's about 'expressing themselves'; it's not. children don't clothe themselves. they sure as hell don't pay for those clothes. not having a uniform sounds like a great way to form cliques of haves and have notes, or to make poorer students feel ostracised because they can't afford that must-have pair of yeezy sneakers.

avoid. you are not special. put on the fucking blazer.

I can follow the argument, sure. But I don't think it's far out the norm in at least rich european countries for most (high school age) kids to buy their own clothes from allowances and side jobs working in supermarkets etc.. While yes a poor child may have to suffice with hand-me-downs don't you think it's somewhat odd that you believe the clothing would instantly cause rifts among the kids? See it as a first contact with social differences and acceptance of those differences as well, what prevents them from getting along? Is it really the clothing? Even in a uniformed school I'm quite sure people are already aware of who the 'rich kids' are and the 'poor kids', the similarity in dress does little. It's a bit of a half-baked attempt at equalising everything really if they all know the world outside their schools doesn't work that way at all either.

As for the gang culture thing, I have to admit no experience with it here.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-21 10:38:01)

I blame alexander's overbearing helicopter mother for that.

She was very competent and succesful in her own right, doesn't mean she couldn't also have been an overbearing mother. She never missed an opportunity to whisper in little Alex's ear that he was a divine gift of the gods and that it was his destiny to rule all. No wonder he turned into a megalomaniac narcissist. Had philip remained in the throne it could've spared the lives of millions of poor persian farmers. Alexander was also very Trumpian in a way, stamping his name on every new place he visited. Such a gaudy sense of taste.

do you even know what episteme means you yokel? You're just grasping at exotic words while you haven't the foggiest.

Flaming_Maniac was also an objectivitist in his his first year of college back in the prime days of bf2s. I miss him dearly.

Why does teasing men amuse you?

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Every so often someone will prove themselves to be more educated on some narrow academic subject than Uzique and it annoys him to no end. There was a user here named Flaming_Maniac who used the term "quintessential fundamental attribution error" once and Uzique thought he just strung together smart sounding phrases when in reality he didn't know what a "Fundamental attribution error" is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundament … tion_error

also i do not remember that. it’s really weird that you do. when was FM last active on this board? 2010? ok i hadn’t heard of a term when i was a freshman. you can have that one !!!

Flaming_Maniac was also an objectivitist in his his first year of college back in the prime days of bf2s. I miss him dearly.

yeah he was also an asperger's case getting into non-stop arguments with 14 year olds. there was a huge age differential in the prime days of bf2s.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-21 11:54:49)

hahahaha you're an obstinate little man. For the millionth time I was perfectly reasonable and accurate in my citation, given the fact that the first thing I did was cite foucault's historical analysis, to which I aligned my own use of the term. Even pointing out that paradigm and episteme are used interchangeably by many these days. Which is fine by me. What's really embarrassing is your undue obsession with this point because you're caught in some fictitious gotcha moment that you cannot let go, obsessively daydreaming of having 'got it right' when you're oh so wrong and refuse to admit to your own little misunderstanding, or accept that I'm ok with a fluid application of these words.

You're also the one holding down this imagined chinese romance. Perhaps you should start taking the same pills macbeth ingests. You've said in the past I 'clearly have a working knowledge of the subject' in reference to Chinese policies. So maybe you should also retreat a little here as it's quite obvious I'm not at all blind to the 'chinese experience' of their reality or surroundings. I'm free to disagree vehemently though, drawing from my own western assumptions and biases. What's wonderfully ironic is that you somehow believe you can completely free yourself of these assumptions and biases, while I doubt you either speak Chinese or spent any moment of time in that country beyond sticking your little english prick in a fair chinese woman. What makes you believe you truly understand the Chinese episteme? You simplistic vilage idiot.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-21 11:57:21)

Larssen wrote:

hahahaha you're an obstinate little man. For the millionth time I was perfectly reasonable and accurate in my citation, given the fact that the first thing I did was cite foucault's historical analysis, to which I aligned my own use of the term. Even pointing out that paradigm and episteme are used interchangeably by many these days. Which is fine by me. What's really embarrasing is your undue obsession with this point because you're caught in some fictitious gotcha moment that you cannot let go, obsessively daydreaming of having 'got it right' when you're oh so wrong and refuse to admit to your own little misunderstanding, or accept that I'm ok with a fluid application of these words.

You're also the one holding down this imagined chinese romance. Perhaps you should start taking the same pills macbeth ingests. You've said in the past I 'clearly have a working knowledge of the subject' in reference to Chinese policies. So maybe you should also retreat a little here as it's quite obvious I'm not at all blind to the 'chinese experience' of their reality or surroundings. I'm free to disagree vehemently though, drawing from my own western assumptions and biases. What's wonderfully ironic is that you somehow believe you can completely free yourself of these assumptions and biases, while I doubt you either speak Chinese or spent any moment of time in that country beyond sticking your little english prick in a fair chinese woman. What makes you believe you truly understand the Chinese episteme? You simplistic vilage idiot.

ok boomer

the errol morris movie of that name is very good. i recommend that you watch it.

also what year was that FAE snafu? i would find it funny to re-read if you have any uzi vs FM show-downs. i am going to gamble a decent amount on it being 2009-2010.

I saw that movie. My favorite cop movie is Training Day.

Do you remember when Lowing got into the empathy vs sympathy debate? It went on for like 10 or 20 pages and eventually the cuck mods closed it.