/edu/ - Education

>>7842
It ain't free once you get to college bud.

>>7847
>what is community college
>what are scholarships (that you can get from CC and the fucking SAT)
you know, thats actually the best part about the US education system. you can get scholarships and stuff for *free* at a time in your life when your choices are the most conscious and under your control. you can also go to college easily if you dropped out.
compare this to a lot of countries in yurop, where if you didn't get good grades in an even more arbitrary exam than the SAT that is not free in access (only accessible through the school system), you get fucked out of your scholarship AND have to frequent high school again for at least another year so you get accepted into college. this easily happens if you're poor, have a bad environment, abusive parents, etc; literally outside of your control. so much for meritocracy right?

>>7966
>AND have to frequent high school again for at least another year so you get accepted into college.
because you're expected to know some things before university. a third of college graduates in the US are illiterate. not even joking, look it up.

>>7967
Yo i'm trying to look this up and im not finding anything that links to the study. Help??

|https://hnn.us/article/118549
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/campus-lunacy

>>7972
https://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480_1.pdf

nevermind i found it. Holy shit.

>>7507
I'll check that out

>>7505
This one has good recs. Maybe pick and choose from it since it's so extensive.

>>7507
I'm in the process of reading this, but what should I do afterwards?

How many times from 1850 to 1990 did America engage in coup d’états of foreign states?



Overthrow of Hawaiian government in 1893.

Organized regime change in Puerto Rico and Cuba in 1898.

Organized regime change in The Philipines 1899.

They were a part of the coalition that crushed the Chinese boxer rebellion (1898-1901).

They helped to "cut" Panama from Colombia.

From 1900 to 1925 - invaded middle America states numerous times, especially Honduras and Nicaragua.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I can write about Yugoslav resistance movement. But I will give a broad picture so everything can be understood better.

Yugoslavia was under the dictatorship of King Alexander since 1929 and until his death (he was assassinated in Marseilles in 1934). Before and after that the Yugoslav "democratic" system was weak. For example the elections after 1934 looked like this: the voter came to the polling station where he had to say his name out loud and who he was voting for and then the members of the voting commission registered his vote.

There was also the great depression which affected Yugoslavia deeply, also the peasant population (more than 70 % of the population back then), there was civil unrest and many strikes in 1935-1936, there were also national tensions, primarily between Serbs and Croats. Also, communists existed (that will be very important later on) and had a great illegal network of operations because they were banned as a party and many of its members were assassinated by the government and many others were brutally tortured in what were basically concentration camps.

The state relied heavily on France and Britain (WW1 allies of Serbs), but in the 30's it also started leaning towards Nazi Germany, however each government tried its best to stay neutral in the European conflicts - but by 1941 the government gave up under the pressure and signed the tripartite pact with Italy, Germany and Japan. Massive protests of the population sprung up because of this and a coup was carried out by a Serbian general, backed by the Brits. This pissed of Hitler and Germany decided to invade Yugoslavia. The fighting was over in like 14 days, the army saw many sabotages (Croatians were killing their Serbian officers, Croatians officers gave up weapons immediately or instructed their soldiers to just go home). Yugoslavia was divided among Hungary, Italy and Germany and it basically ceased to exist de facto. The Germans and Italians also supported the Croat Ustaši and they supported their state NDH (Independend Croatian State), which was pretty much a puppet state. Similarly, all Slovenian "legal" parties decided they don't wanna fight against nazi and fascist occupation, but that they want to work together with them - but they didn't even get a puppet state, Slovenian lands were de jure and de facto incorporated into Italy, Hungary and Germany.

The communists were the only force that called out to the people to start an armed rPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The instability in the Balkans goes back to the falling might of the Ottoman empire since the 19th century. Balkan nations and then the states they established fought over the questions of borders - 1st Balkan war, 2nd Balkan war. Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia were part of Austria-Hungary and they fought for the central powers in WW1, while Serbia fought on the side of the entente (it is true that many south slavic volunteers from Austria-Hungary joined the Serbian army).

After the war the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was established, which was renamed into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929 when king Alexander established a dictatorship. The Serbian elite saw this post war state as a means to achieve a "Great Serbia" and this always clashed with the autonomy tendencies of Croats and Slovenes. Serbs wanted a strongly centralized state while Croats and Slovenes wanted a federal state. The tensions were particularly high between Croats and Serbs which culminated in the assassination/murder of the Croatian political leader Radić by a Serb mp, who was tied strongly with the court. Dictatorship was established after this incident and many thousand political prisoners were murdered and brutally tortured by the regime.

By this time also the Croat ultra nationalist ultra catholic movement called The Ustasi gained prominence and together with other groups they orchestrated the assassination of King Alexander in Marseilles in 1934. The Ustaše wanted an independent Croatian state. Their leader was Ante Pavelić, living in fascist Italy in exile and was influenced by Italian fascism. By 1939 the Serbs and Croats came to an agreement to grant huge autonomy to Croatia.

When Yugoslavia tried to sign the tripartite pact mass demonstrations broke out and a coup was carried out by a Serb army general with the support of the British. When Germany invaded Yugoslavia, which had a relatively massive army, the Croats sabotaged the military as they saw this invasion as a means to destroy Yugoslavia and establish an independent state. And an independent Croatian puppet state was indeed established (NDH), ruled by Pavelić's Ustaše and the catholic church. The Ustaše regime carried out horrible crimes and violence against Serbs, also Romas, jews and others - the Ustaše commited the worst war crimes of the war, at least in Europe, but probably even worse than what the Japan unit did in China. They slaughtered people, the Ustaše catholic priests carriePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7538
it was as question posed by a liberlul

>>7955
>>7956
I'm just joking around, sheesh you guys are uptight. Compared to last year shit is worse though cause of the split and mod drama.

>>7957
what split?

>>7958
Last month lefty (chan) (dot) net split into a separate site because the mods had a meltdown over a variety of things, ranging from "muh /pol/" to avatar-fags. leftypol.org holds strong but suffered a bit and is currently recovering AGAIN. Some older threads are missing posts and the other boards are underused

>>7959
sorry, didn't mean to sage, bump

Descriptive > Prescriptive but I think what >>356 said is right as well. To learn a language you need prescriptivsm. But having a purely prescriptive approach in language teaching is cancer.

bump

>>353
>A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars
Yeah no that's inane bullshit. Words do not arise from nothing and neither do their meanings. Linguists and academic definitions of language are used to determine the etymological origin of a word and thus it's original meaning. For a new meaning, a new word based on the rules of alphabets, language and their spelling/grammar a priori.
This "fugg uthority" idea on language is childish liberalism that is completely ignorant on the process of language and definition formation.
Obviously academia is riddled with ideologues that can make imprecise definitions and the like, but that does not discount academic definitions in and of themselves.
>Comic
The comic is cringe, but also goes directly against your OP idea, and rightly so, those that use words without understanding their meanings are inane or ignorant.

>>383
Caring about ANOTHER language =/= dismissing definitions in a dictionary.

>>353
>A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars
>FUCK OXFORD DICTIONARY
The OP is probably gone, someone bumped the thread. The ignorance I see still surprises me. It would have taken OP twenty seconds to look up how dictionaries, especially OED, are constructed.

The OED was a crowd-source attempt to catalogue every word in the English language, its etymology and its use/definition throughout the years. People were asked to send in words, their definitions and the context in which they appear, as well as the written work were they appear. Even today, dictionaries do not dictate how words are used, only dweebs say they do so they can argue semantics. Dictionaries reflect the language in use. For example, Merriam-Webster has "ya'll" in the dictionary because of its widespread use in the southern United States [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/y%27all], while Oxford English Dictionary has the word "yeet" in it, because people use it/write it [https://www.lexico.com/definition/yeet]

>Words do not arise from nothing and neither do their meanings. Linguists and academic definitions of language are used to determine the etymological origin of a word and thus it's original meaning. For a new meaning, a new word based on the rules of alphabets, language and their spelling/grammar a priori.
This "fugg uthority" idea on language is childish liberalism that is completely ignorant on the process of language and definition formation.
This is a bunch of hogwash, because language and its definitions are determined by its speakers/users, not by academics in ivory towers. That poster doesn't know what they're talking about.

So, if discard a dictionaries' definition of, say, socialism, how then i'm an supposed to define it? Under Marx's view? Under the view of utopian socialists? According to Hitler, Mises, boomers or 14yo me? Based on what most people currently think?

Van Horn, Mirowski, & Stapleford (eds.) – Building Chicago Economics. New Perspectives on the History of America’s Most Powerful Economics Program (Cambridge; Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics, 2011)

Later Ionian & Athenian Thinkers, Part 2 [Atomists] {cor.} (Harvard; Loeb Classical Library 530, 2016)

Gerson & Inwood (eds.) – The Epicurus Reader (Hackett, 1994)

>>1752
I do not speak with Dengists.

>>1744
>guy interested in psychology
Try introducing him to Mark Fisher

Here you go.

you guys gotta read Hobsbawm. his whole Age Of series has been indispensable to me

bump?

>>7495
god damn nice post anon

>>7487
>It's an interesting historical document, and I also believe there might be things we can learn from it, because the Nazis were trying to figure out Marxists' strengths and weaknesses at the time with the goal of winning over workers and recruiting ex-Marxists into their ranks.
I bet Hitler would use the red brown card. The Nazbol vortex. Before annihilating non-white "ex-Marxists" altogether. But luckily the swastika is the symbol of losers since 1945.

>>7495
Based

>>7488
Welcome to feels>reals politics.

>>7495
>In their heart and soul, many of these former Marxist workers are already National Socialists; only their materialism keeps them from breaking with the false gods of the past.
I wanted to comment on how fucking retarded all this is, and then double-checked. The Night of the Long Knives was in 1934, so this article aged poorly. :^)

Evolution is just a description of what happens, it does not give purpose to anything. Nothing has "evolutionary purpose", it's a meaningless term.

>>7049
>why, evolutionarily speaking, do animals or organisms in general (including humans) keep on living after they are no longer able to reproduce due to age?
Older members of a community can provide guidance (think village elders and matriarchal/patriarchal familial structures), care (thanks tondecades of knowledge and experience in treating people, modern medicine is not very old), education, and so on. You see this in mammals, where the older members are the guides/leaders cause they know where the water is, food, shelter, where to move, seasons, etc.
>Wouldn't it be better for the survival of the species if they just died after they couldn't have kids anymore? Evolutionarily they have no purpose right?
No. Who'd protect the offspring? This is especially true for humans. We're unique in the animal kingdom because out offspring can't realistically take care of themselves for ten years or more.
>Is it just so they can help to raise offspring? But elderly animals continue to consume resources that could go towards young, so isn't it still a net loss overall?
Their value far outweighs what they use in resources. Some human cultures have practiced senicide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide

>>7049
>a thread died for this
back to >>>/leftypol/