If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Whatever - Scalzi)   John Scalzi just invalidated all of your arguments about your taxes being too high   (whatever.scalzi.com) divider line 538
    More: Hero, Air Force Base, Mr. Johnson, Fresno Bee, Glendora  
•       •       •

42305 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 4:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



538 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 06:04:10 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

Just to be clear: You're saying Scalzi was wrong because RICH straight white guy is an easier setting than Regular straight white guy?

I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.


Thanks. Fugue states are just fine. Got it.
 
2012-07-23 06:07:50 PM  

Rincewind53: RichieLaw: citation needed.jpeg
vpb: Really? What was that about?

I'm guessing gerrymander is just upset that Scalzi wrote a very good article called "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is" and he disagrees with the concept, even though the article is 100% correct, 0% racist, and very well-written.


That article was complete bullshiat. His follow up article was snarky bullshiat.
 
2012-07-23 06:07:52 PM  

jimk777: . Everyone is born with some advantages and disadvantages. How you take advantage of things and overcome obstacles are the determining factors because almost everyone faces obstacles and almost everyone has some advantages.


Well then how are we supposed to figure out which people are lazy and stupid without stereotypes?
 
2012-07-23 06:08:10 PM  

RehcamretsneF: This subby obviously didnt read the article.

Apart from being on welfare, taxes did nothing for this man.


Other than helping his mother give birth to him over 3 days via medical doctors at a US military base, and the school lunch programs, and the educational assistance, you got it right. Scalzi got ahead through his own hard work, the help of others, and yes, taxpayer assistance. I suspect nearly all of us are where we are thanks to those three conditions.
 
2012-07-23 06:08:12 PM  

roxtar10870: Taxes = theft

The price you pay for living in a civilized society.

FTFY.
 
2012-07-23 06:08:28 PM  

gerrymander: I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.


I think his point is that white guys should recognize that maybe, just maybe, we have things just a little easier by virtue of being white guys.
 
2012-07-23 06:09:52 PM  

pxlboy: Why is it stupid to point that out? This Randian idea of our "betters" being islands of accomplishment unto themselves is ludicrous and self-serving.

Starting and running a business is one thing, but to ignore the support and safety factors available to someone incorporating in the US is egocentric and false. No man is an island, regardless of what he may think.


Never said they were "betters". What you seem to keep being blind to is that resources are available to everyone. Some people take advantage of things in their life and some people don't. Some people go to a party school and coast through college and some people bust their balls learning and getting the most advantage of potential contacts and so on while they are at college. Some people have a goal and sacrifice to achieve it and some people really don't want that hassle and would rather just punch a clock and do what they have to because other things are more important to them or they just don't want to do the extra work. In either case it is the individual who makes those choices and as long as they don't whine about it, both are living the life they wish to.
 
2012-07-23 06:11:05 PM  

Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"


FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".
 
2012-07-23 06:11:16 PM  
someone wants higher taxes, and gets the HERO tag.

talk about people voting against their own interests...
 
2012-07-23 06:12:44 PM  

caramba421: Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high.

/invalidates the invalidation

Brilliant! We should cut them off so they all get jobs by writing "N/A" in the phone number section of their job application.


They can use what I have. An $18 Tracphone. It makes phone calls just fine. No moocher should be using a smart phone. They should be getting a job. If that means uprooting and moving the bread winner to the Dakotas to work the oil fields then do it.
 
2012-07-23 06:12:52 PM  

gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".


Let me guess, You are not the family member selected to say grace at Thanskgiving.
 
2012-07-23 06:13:02 PM  
Jesus, this thread went from 0 to DERP in one post flat.

Also, -1 for the Hero tag. Stating the obvious doesn't make you a hero just because you're a famous author. Maybe so when threatened by strict government censorship, but people have been saying this for years.
 
2012-07-23 06:13:33 PM  

Teufelaffe: Yes, that's exactly right. By pointing out that the pay gap is real and that, statistically, blacks far outnumber all other ethnic groups in prison, I am totally saying you should make generalizations. *rolls eyes*


"So, the challenge: how to get across the ideas bound up in the word "privilege," in a way that your average straight white man will get, without freaking out about it?"

The issue is that stating that 'white men' are indelibly endowed with some quality or value that makes their lives naturally easier is simplistic and dangerous.

It diminishes all of the actual REASONS why a statement such as 'white men are privileged' can be taken at face value when presented with a statistic or graph.

The simple fact is that people like to lean on statistics without looking behind them to WHY a particular number is higher than the other. Writing it off as a race or gender thing is stupid and lazy. That's they problem I have with it. It is, at its core, no different than sexist or racist viewpoints, and feeds into lazy thinking.

The causes of social striation between gender/race, the facts behind the numbers, are FAR less attributable to whether you have a Y chromosome or the color of your skin, than they are to the resources you had access to growing up and the education you received. You can say that the average African American has access to fewer resources and is less likely to receive a quality education than the average white person. But, while that may be true, it's also about as useful a statistic as the fact that everyone that breathes oxygen eventually dies. The true issue is poverty. You can also say that more African American families, on average, live in poverty. The answer to that is what the fark does it matter? Should we focus on the fact that they're black? Or the fact that they're in poverty? Should we spend extra special attention to 'black poverty'? Are we in some kind of competition? Or should we be fighting the causes of poverty across the board regardless?

This is my issue with his article. Not that I think he's racist or sexist, but that it perpetuates the underlying problem with how we approach pretty much every social debate. We talk around the issue, we don't talk about what can be done about it. We try to find someone to point a finger at. On one side you have people calling African Americans lazy, on the other hand you have people saying that white people inherit privilege with the lack of melanin in their skin. It's stupid, unproductive, and lends absolutely nothing to the conversation.
 
2012-07-23 06:14:29 PM  

keypusher: Don't get ahead of yourself. Start by showing a loss of education funding resulting from Prop. 13. But yeah, any argument from Prop. 13 re education pretty much went out the window with Prop. 98.


The existence of Prop. 98 alone is irrelevant. What matters is whether the funding minimum in Prop. 98 outweighs losses of funding from Prop. 13. And if you don't think Prop. 13 lead to any funding losses in the first place, then Prop. 98 is doubly irrelevant. It's only relevant if you think Prop. 13 did lead to funding losses, but Prop. 98 made up for them. So, if you want to convince someone making a Prop. 13 argument, you have to do so by presenting the cost-benefit comparison between the two propositions, not by merely noting the existing of Prop. 98.

I don't actually care about either proposition or California's education funding, but your logic is lacking.
 
2012-07-23 06:15:20 PM  
The dude is a writer. Try finding someone who started a business next time - even a business like fark.com.

"Without human civilization, nothing you did would be possible."

Great, thanks. That's just sour grapes from liberals who haven't done shiat with their lives.
 
2012-07-23 06:17:46 PM  

jimk777: Rincewind53:You and Scalzi may be missing the point on why Obama's statements were so ignorant. If people succeed because of other people, society, government or whatever, then everyone should have succeeded to the same degree. If you didn't build your own business why doesn't everyone have a successful business? Disregarding the small percentage of people who succeed because of wealthy parents or the even smaller percentage of people who fail because they are literally brain damaged, everyone has access to the these same resources and opportunities. Some people are simply better at making use of resources and finding opportunities and some people aren't interested in what is usually the hard work and hours required to initially build a successful business. The resources and opportunities are available to all and people from all social and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded. The difference is purely down to the individual which is why it was either stupid or irrelevant for Obama to claim people don't build their own business simply because they are not alone on a deserted island by themself.


i added emphasis to one of your points, above. i don't remember scalzi or obama saying this. this is your opinion, not proven fact.
 
2012-07-23 06:17:57 PM  

garkola: The dude is a writer. Try finding someone who started a business next time - even a business like fark.com.


Yeah, writing isn't a real job. And none of the examples Scalzi cites are of any relevance to the upbringing and career trajectories of future businessmen, who are above such petty concerns.
 
2012-07-23 06:18:22 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: They can use what I have. An $18 Tracphone. It makes phone calls just fine. No moocher should be using a smart phone. They should be getting a job. If that means uprooting and moving the bread winner to the Dakotas to work the oil fields then do it.


My iPhone 3 was $0.99, Mr Monopoly. Did they serve you caviar and give you a complimentary blowjob with that $18 phone?
 
2012-07-23 06:19:24 PM  

FuturePastNow: jake_lex: I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'

John Scalzi is pretty much the opposite of a Teabagger.


So, he takes ball bags in his shiat-hole?
 
2012-07-23 06:20:19 PM  

kidgenius: jst3p: OgreMagi: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

Bullshiat! I have exprienced almost every item on your list.

Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up.

The only item on that list I would argue against (and I'm a hetero-white-male) is the food/shelter item. Skin color does not affect that. If I'm born white, it doesn't mean I automatically have a house or food.


While it is true that being white does not automatically afford you shelter, being black or hispanic can definitely make it harder to obtain. Do a search for "rent bias" if you doubt it.
 
2012-07-23 06:21:41 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

Just to be clear: You're saying Scalzi was wrong because RICH straight white guy is an easier setting than Regular straight white guy?

I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.


I don't think he's saying that AT ALL. It is not an argument AGAINST being a white, straight guy, it is an argument FOR being aware of the white male privilege in America, asking ourselves why that is and what we can do to foster a more equal and inclusive.....

Wait, why am I bothering with this? You've already proven that you either can't read or are incapable of understanding written material.
 
2012-07-23 06:21:42 PM  

colon_pow: someone wants higher taxes, and gets the HERO tag.

talk about people voting against their own interests...


Your stupidity is amazingly interesting. I wish I knew you in person.
 
2012-07-23 06:23:23 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".

Let me guess, You are not the family member selected to say grace at Thanskgiving.


You guess incorrectly, and thanks for adding nothing to the discussion with that ad hominem attack!

But in the interest of fairness, I'm happy to open the discussion. Can you, Vlad, come up with one example where a person advocating others "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" in a way that wasn't intended to diminish them?
 
2012-07-23 06:23:39 PM  
Wow, a lot of people didn't really read the article (shocking, I know). Also, quite a few dumbasses in here.
 
2012-07-23 06:25:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: By pointing out that the pay gap is real


Oh and, no. It's not.

In case you don't feel like reading second-hand articles about it. Here's the foreward on a gender wage gap report done for the department of labor requested by the Obama administration. Here's a link to that if you'd like a citation.

An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity
in Wages Between Men and Women

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables
include:
A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to
pay less than full-time work.
A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child
care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who
were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of
children in the home.
1 2
Women, especially working mothers, tend to value "family friendly" workplace policies
more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly,
the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.
Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations
may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD's model and much of the
literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women's Earnings, focus on
wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage
benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation
in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.
In principle, more of the raw wage gap could be explained by including some additional
variables within a single comprehensive analysis that considers all of the factors simultaneously;
however, such an analysis is not feasible to conduct with available data bases. Factors, such as
work experience and job tenure, require data that describe the behavior of individual workers
over extended time periods. The longitudinal data bases that contain such information include
too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry.
Cross-sectional data bases that include enough workers to enable analysis of factors like
occupation and industry do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to
support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.
Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous
conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a
multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify
corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be
almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.
 
2012-07-23 06:26:35 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


When talking about Straight White Privilege, everyone seems to ignore the fact that straight white people make up the majority of the population, and people tend to favor people who look and act like they do. Some people like to talk about white privilege like its some sort of conspiracy to keep wealth away from minorities.
 
2012-07-23 06:27:00 PM  
An attitude of gratitude.

More people need to have it.
 
2012-07-23 06:27:53 PM  

steamingpile: You don't agree that being born a straight, white male is like hitting the lottery in this country?

Am I on candid camera? Cause you trollin'!


The white people on welfare who happen to outnumber the minorities on welfare would disagree with you. Why are you guys so insistent that under-privileged white people don't exist?
 
2012-07-23 06:29:16 PM  

FuturePastNow: jake_lex: I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'

John Scalzi is pretty much the opposite of a Teabagger.


He slowly raises his head up until your balls are resting on the top of it?
 
2012-07-23 06:29:35 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".

Let me guess, You are not the family member selected to say grace at Thanskgiving.

You guess incorrectly, and thanks for adding nothing to the discussion with that ad hominem attack!

But in the interest of fairness, I'm happy to open the discussion. Can you, Vlad, come up with one example where a person advocating others "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" in a way that wasn't intended to diminish them?


Sorry the subtly was lost.

Giving 'Thanks' at Thanksgiving is EXACTLY about being aware of what you've got, privileges included, and feeling good about it. Feeling good about that wouldn't diminish anyone.
 
2012-07-23 06:33:04 PM  

Headso: skinnycatullus: WTF is going on in this thread?

total farkers happened to it


^This. The problem with Fark as a whole is the totalfarkers, which is why although I'd like to experience more of Fark I refuse to be a "totalfarker!"
 
2012-07-23 06:36:24 PM  
hahaha.

All his perks I never had. F*** him and f*** our entitlement society.
 
2012-07-23 06:37:25 PM  

kasmel: Here's the foreward on a gender wage gap report done for the department of labor requested by the Obama administration.


The CONSAD report was requested by the Bush administration. Look at the date. Also, it doesn't have the ability to really resolve causal questions. For example, there are more women in part-time jobs, but how much of that observation is attributable to women's free choices in the absence of any discriminatory factors, and how much is attributable to discrimination? The report can't say. (And either way, there is a wage gap, the dispute is just about what causes it.)
 
2012-07-23 06:37:35 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


But you DO know what it is like to be a complete moron.
 
2012-07-23 06:38:21 PM  
Nobody ever makes it entirely on his own. But the inference, started by Elizabeth Warren and plagiarized by Obama, is that the government is responsible for everyone's success. That is where they are wrong.

The government, in the U.S., does not own the means of production and does not create wealth. When it builds a road to go to your factory, it does so with tax dollars that come to it as a result of economic activity in the private sector. All government spending is funded by taxing the private sector or by printing money, which is a debt that must be repaid, someday, by the private sector. In the U.S., it is only the success of the private sector that allows the government to be as generous as it is.

Scalzi also received welfare benefits of various sorts. Once again, the government has no money of its own to hand out, that money comes from private sector productivity. If I give a hungry person something to eat from my own kitchen, that is charity and that is laudable. Would I be viewed as laudable if I broke into my neighbor's pantry and gave the hungry food from there? No, I would be considered a thief. At the very least, the person from whom I stole the food might not think my beneficiary worthy of his beneficence and may have wished to give it to someone else. Just because the government has passed laws that permit them to confiscate private productivity and hand it out to those it deems worthy does not make it a moral activity. It may be legal, it is not moral. In addition to stealing in order to look charitable, it robs the productive of the incentive, and in some cases, the ability to be charitable.

In communist or socialist countries, the government owns everything and is perfectly entitled to pass it out as it wishes. We weren't originally set up that way. It is also instructive that poverty has not significantly declined since the inception of the war on poverty. The biggest dips in the poverty rate coincide not with government programs but with robust private sector economic activity.
 
2012-07-23 06:39:12 PM  

ricochet4: jimk777: Rincewind53:You and Scalzi may be missing the point on why Obama's statements were so ignorant. If people succeed because of other people, society, government or whatever, then everyone should have succeeded to the same degree. If you didn't build your own business why doesn't everyone have a successful business? Disregarding the small percentage of people who succeed because of wealthy parents or the even smaller percentage of people who fail because they are literally brain damaged, everyone has access to the these same resources and opportunities. Some people are simply better at making use of resources and finding opportunities and some people aren't interested in what is usually the hard work and hours required to initially build a successful business. The resources and opportunities are available to all and people from all social and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded. The difference is purely down to the individual which is why it was either stupid or irrelevant for Obama to claim people don't build their own business simply because they are not alone on a deserted island by themself.

i added emphasis to one of your points, above. i don't remember scalzi or obama saying this. this is your opinion, not proven fact.


Umm, no it is pretty much fact. The overall resources of society are there for everyone. Anyone who is not stupid and willing to dedicate themselves to the effort required could get a good scholarship to a good school for example. Everyone is born with some specific advantages or disadvantages that would affect them being able to accomplish that. Focusing on any one factor is ridiculous and irrelevant. Who is more likely to get a scholarship to Harvard, the white male with an IQ of 70 born to a single mother in backwoods Arkansas or the genius and multi-talented black woman born to a wealthy family in NYC? Outside of such extreme examples the point is that the same general pool so to speak of resources are available to everyone in our society.

Sure the specific resources or opportunities may be different but the overall benefits of living in America are there for everyone and large numbers of people from every social and ethnic group have succeeded. The difference is up to the individual and what they make of the advantages of American society.
 
2012-07-23 06:40:32 PM  

badaboom: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

But you DO know what it is like to be a complete moron.


privelage?
 
2012-07-23 06:41:02 PM  

gerrymander: Rincewind53: Wow. Turns out I was totally right. You ARE remarkably ignorant about privilege. And your reading comprehension sucks if you read any racism or sexism against white males into Scalzi's post.

The racism and sexism is present in the selective attention. If he had done an entire series of posts wherein different audiences each had their own privilege proclaimed as "easy mode" with an attendant examination of how they get benefits they might not merit, I wouldn't be complaining. (And if he did after I stopped reading, please say so, and I'll do my homework and reconsider.)

But parenthetical note aside, I'm fairly confident he didn't -- because like you, he doesn't actually acknowledge that different people may gain different societal benefits they don't merit in different situations. (Take these informal dating studies, for example. Not the results expected from the "straight, white male privilege" model, to say the least.) The elitism Scalzi displays is a modern form of what used to be called "the white man's burden", bringing enlightenment to the savages. That he's casting other white men in the role of the savages doesn't make the racism any less appalling.

That you can't recognize it is just embarrassing.


After reading the "studies" you link to, it appears that you may be angry that "white male" doesn't get you as far as "attractive white male"...
 
2012-07-23 06:41:08 PM  
Oh GOD I am a white male !!! I should enslave myself to the system and give away everything I ever earn so I may be worthy to be walked on!
 
2012-07-23 06:41:14 PM  
Hey, gerrymander, you seem to have need some help with the situation you find yourself in here. Believe it or not, there is a way to save face and redeem your credibility! Since you apparently don't know how, I'll give you complete, step-by-step instructions:

• Step 1: Click in the "Comment:" text area below this thread where you type in your responses. I assume that you already have your "Login:" and "Password:" entered. You should see a flashing text bar cursor in the upper left corner of that text area.

• Step 2a: Look at your keyboard. Over on the left side, second row from the bottom, you'll see a large key. It's labeled "Shift". Press and hold this [Shift ] key with your left pinky finger.

• Step 2b: While still holding that key down, hover your right index fingertip over the top row of keys on the typewriter-like alphanumeric portion of the keyboard. These are all small keys. Most of them have numerals (digits) as their bottom labels, and a punctuation symbol as the top label. The digits are in numerical order (except that zero [0] follows nine [9]), so it's easy to find the spot we're looking for: you need to hover the fingertip between two keys, namely, the one labeled [*8] and the one next to it labeled [(9] (the labels here are shown horizontally separated, but actually they're vertically separated: the punctuation symbol is on top of the digit). Now, move your fingertip down one row, and it should be hovering over a key labeled [I]. Press and release that key, then release the [Shift ] key. You should see "I" appear in the "Comments:" edit box, with the bar cursor now flashing just to the right of it.

• Step 2c: Finally, with either thumb, press and release the widest key on the keyboard, one that has no label at all. This is called the "space bar." You should see no text change in the box, but the flashing bar cursor should move slightly to the right, a very short distance away from the "I" that you created in Step 2b.

• Step 3a: Remember how we used the top row of number keys to help find a letter key in Step 2b? Well, let's do it again: this time, we need to hover our left index fingertip between the [@2] and [#3] keys, then move down one row. The key that your fingertip should now be hovering over should be labeled [W]. Press and release it, and remember it because we're going to need it again in Step 4a. You should now see a "w" appear a short distance to the right of the "I" with a small space between them, and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "w."

Step 3b: With your left fingertip still on or above the [W] key, move it down one row and to the left one key so that hovers over the [A] key. Press and release it, and voila! "a" has now been added just after the "w", and the flashing bar cursor is now just to the right of the newly-created "a"!

Step 3c: Now move your left fingertip one key to the right from the [A] key that you just pressed. This key is the [S] key. Press and release it, and "s" gets added to the right of the "wa" which is a short distance from the "I" from Step 1. So far, you should see "I was" with the flashing bar cursor just to the right of the newly-created "s"!

Step 3d is the same as Step 2c, namely, press the space bar. Again, the flashing bar cursor should move a short distance to the right, visibly separated from the "s."

Step 4a: Remember how I told you back in Step 3a that we'd need the [W] key again? Now's the time! If you forgot where it is, fear not: your left fingertip should still be hovering near the [S] key, and it's one row up and slightly to the left of that! Press and release it. You should now see a second "w" appear a short distance to the right of the "s" with a small space between them, and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "w."

Step 4b: Move your left fingertip not one, but two, keys to the right of the [W] key. It should now be hovering over the [R] key. Press and release it. You should now see an "r" appear just to the right of the "w", and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "r."

Step 4c: If you haven't moved your right hand much since Step 2b, its index fingertip should still be hovering over or near the [I] key. The one that we want now is just to the right of that: the [O] key. If you lost track of that, you can find it easily by using the numbers trick: this key is just one row below the space between the [(9] and [)0] keys. You should know what to do by now: press and release it, and watch the "o" appear, with the bar cursor moving to just past it.

Step 4d: Now it gets a bit tricky. Move the right index fingertip not just one, but two, keys to the left, so that it's hovering over the [U] key. That's not the one we want to press, though: now, move the fingertip down not one, but two rows. It should now be hovering over the [N] key. Press and release it. "n" appears.

Step 4e: Back to the left index fingertip, which we last left in Step 4b hovering over the [R] key. Move it over one to the right so that it now hovers over the [T] key, then down one row so that it hovers over the [G] key. Press and release that. "g" appears.

Step 4f: Actually, your message as it exists now would be good enough for most FARKers, but just to satisfy the grammar Nazis, move the left fingertip (which should still be hovering over the [N] key) three keys to the right, so that it hovers over a key labeled [>.]. Press and release that.

Step 5: Click [ Add Comment ]. If "Preview before post" was checked, click [ Add Comment ] again.

There. That wasn't so hard, now, was it? Why do so few FARKers (or people on other Internet opinion forums) ever do this?
 
2012-07-23 06:41:53 PM  
The first four chapters of Redshirts suck.
 
2012-07-23 06:42:01 PM  

gerrymander: (Take these informal dating studies, for example. Not the results expected from the "straight, white male privilege" model, to say the least.)


From your link: "White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else--and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively. These three types of women only respond well to white men. More significantly, these groups' reply rates to non-whites is terrible."

and "They respond less than any other group, and they respond least of all to black women."

So yeah, I'm pretty comfortable saying those results are precisely what is expected in a situation of white male privilege. But I assume you gave this post the same kind of careful reading you gave to the Sclazi post you're complaining about, yes?
 
2012-07-23 06:42:35 PM  

jst3p: Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up


You were born with many advantages just being born in the US.

And parental income has been a better indicator than race/sex in this country for a long time, but "white guilt" has such a nice ring to it...
 
2012-07-23 06:43:22 PM  

liam76: And parental income has been a better indicator than race/sex in this country for a long time, but "white guilt" has such a nice ring to it...


/applause
 
2012-07-23 06:43:32 PM  

Mr. Right: Nobody ever makes it entirely on his own. But the inference, started by Elizabeth Warren and plagiarized by Obama, is that the government is responsible for everyone's success. That is where they are wrong.


The government isn't wholly responsible for everyone's success. But neither is the private sector. Nor the individual. That's Scalzi's point. Nor was his essay aimed solely at the virtues of government; he also highlighted business connections and other examples.

In communist or socialist countries, the government owns everything and is perfectly entitled to pass it out as it wishes.

You know how I know that you have no idea what socialism is?

/remaining "taxation is theft" nonsense snipped
 
2012-07-23 06:43:55 PM  
For an accurate view of what it REALLY feels like to get caught in the Welfare trap, I suggest "Uncle Sam's Plantation" by Star Parker.

Parker clawed her way out of the ghetto, and knows what she is talking about. She has been there---and had that done to her.

Unlike most of you Farkers. . . . . . . . .
 
2012-07-23 06:44:48 PM  
I got here on my own. Fark you
 
2012-07-23 06:45:32 PM  
"There is a flip side to this as well. I have helped others too. I am financially successful now; I pay a lot of taxes. I don't mind because I know how taxes helped me to get to the fortunate position I am in today. I hope the taxes I pay will help some military wife give birth, a mother who needs help feed her child, help another child learn and fall in love with the written word, and help still another get through college."

The more money you make, the more you'll pay in taxes. If you don't like it, then get a job that doesn't pay as much. I'm sure they'll have no problem replacing you.
 
2012-07-23 06:45:33 PM  

liam76: jst3p: Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up

You were born with many advantages just being born in the US.

And parental income has been a better indicator than race/sex in this country for a long time, but "white guilt privilege" has such a nice ring to it...


Meant to type it like this...oops.
 
2012-07-23 06:45:45 PM  

Ambitwistor: The government isn't wholly responsible for everyone's success. But neither is the private sector. Nor the individual. That's Scalzi's point.


That is the point where he loses credibility......its the individual's response to the lot they have been dealt in life.....Some people are born bigger, stronger, better looking, smarter etc.....THATS LIFE its what you make of it.
 
Displayed 50 of 538 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report