[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
What is 6 - 2?

Not reporting is bourgeois

| Catalog | Home
|

 

Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.

Previous thread >>>/leftypol_archive/580500
Archive of previous thread
https://archive.is/saN3S

Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes

Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.

This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.

https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
335 posts and 52 image replies omitted.

>>24619
I have been avoiding reading because I’m afraid it’s going to send me even further down this spiral. There, hope we’re on topic now. I’ve been avoiding studying Marxism for the same reason for 10+ years. I only know what I’ve gleaned from certain verbal abusers on reddit and other social media



 

drop them PDFs, we will rebuild edition
202 posts and 454 image replies omitted.




 

ITT post information about the history and anthropology of the New World. A lot of new anthropological work has been done in this field in recent decades that has not yet entered public consciousness.
143 posts and 190 image replies omitted.

>>24602
>>24603
>likely served as a trading hub linking Pacific coast cultures with those in the Andes and Amazon
If they can find more solid evidence to that effect this is an incredibly important site and a historic find.
>After eight years of studies
It's crazy to think about how far the published research on rediscovered ruins in the Americas has come since 2017. One wonders how it might have been affected if this information was public, although it's understandable why they'd want to study this quietly for a while.

>>24603
>la civilización prístina de Caral, la primera de toda América.
That we know of ;-)
At the rate they keep finding things on these continents who knows if that honor will last

>>24604
>If they can find more solid evidence to that effect this is an incredibly important site and a historic find.
In another article I read it mentioned sculptures with Amazonic traits, likely the ones in >>24603. I'm not an expert but one of them looks like a monkey to me and they don't live on the coast of Peru.
>it's understandable why they'd want to study this quietly for a while.
Yes. Many articles also mention how Ruth Shady, the director of the Caral Archeological Zone, and her archeologists have been threatened by land speculators who seem hellbent on buying the land around the archeological sites to develop it.

posting about this cause i'm just finding out

Mexican government acquires long-lost Aztec manuscripts about the rise and fall of Tenochtitlan

María Castañeda de la Paz still vividly recalls discovering the Codices of San Andrés Tetepilco in 2009. While on vacation, a colleague mentioned a friend who had some potentially interesting manuscripts. She went to a meeting in Mexico City’s ritzy Coyoacán neighborhood and was amazed to find copies of these codices, one of which narrates the history of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec empire’s ancient capital. “It’s not every day you come across documents like this,” said Castañeda de la Paz. “I was thrilled and surprised because documents about the history of Tenochtitlan are very rare.” She is among a team of experts who unveiled the discovery on March 20 at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. After years of research and negotiations, the Mexican government paid 9.5 million pesos (roughly $500,000) to the family that owned these historical manuscripts.

The effort to acquire documents dating from the late 16th century and early 17th century was long and fraught with setbacks. “The person who showed me photos of the codices on a computer mentioned they belonged to a family, but didn’t provide details other than the family had two or three documents. I was given some color copies to analyze, and I suggested registering them to prevent a rise in black market value. The family wasn’t interested in that, and I started to have some doubts about who really owned the codices. I tried many times to contact the family but they were unresponsive, and unfortunately their interest eventually faded,” said Castañeda de la Paz, a researcher at the Anthropological Research Institute of Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM).

Unable to persuade the family with the valuable manuscripts, Castañeda de la Paz contacted Baltazar Brito Guadarrama, head of the National Library of Anthropology and History (BNAH), and showed him the copies. Brito then led the effort to contact the family and acquire the codices. “I was totally surprised when I opened the little box they were in. And when I lifted the first sheet, I just knew it was an original document,” said Brito. The National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) hasn’t disclosed the owners’ identities, but Brito says they said the documents were passed down through generations in the same family.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


lonely ushnus in the middle of desolate, giant plazas, surrounded by the corpses of dead inka cities and suffused in the cold climate of the suni make me feel melancholic



File: 1682752276713.png (1.73 MB, 1500x1500, American Dialectics.png)

 

Lets examine these two men, or more specifically, the way they were viewed and the eras they represent.

Washington - Is supposed to represent the true founding of the US. This aristocratic figure, who through war, created this nation. A Napoleonic figure, in the sense that he led the war personally, and was the one who led the nation personally. His era represents a time where the states were in majority control. When the constitution was most respected. And of course, in some circles, what the US represented and should represent. A WASP nation. A Christian nation.

Lincoln - A man who represents the savior of this nation. This unlikely figure who rose from out of nowhere, and had the wherewithal to be able to keep it together. He represents the beginning of the centralization of the US. What's interesting about him was that he technically represents the beginning what the real nation of the US. Whereas before, they were the United States of America, now its the United States of America, with the US identity finally developing. A strangely Napoleonic move, if I do say so. And lastly, of course, the man who was able to overcome the US's original sin. Slavery.

Now for their detractors, its easy. Some will look at Washington (and Lincoln for that matter) as good for nothing racists. Washington so more because of his slaves. While others (reactoids) will look at Lincoln and curse him for causing the end of the US by allowing the Negro the same rights as Whites.

Now lots of these views are all great man theory. And they don't truly show who they were. They were complex humans, with strange morals. Washington hated slavery, but he kept his slaves. Lincoln detested slavery, but said he wanted ship black people back to Africa. This was pre civil war, but nonetheless, shows that these people aren't as simple as "good American guy" or "evil yakubian devil". But its interesting to see how different political tendencies viewed these two men and what they represented over the years. I would say the image in OP is the best example of what I mean. You have these two opposing forces, choosing two pivotal figures in US history, each representing different values. There is a clear reason for that and why still to this day, you will have reactionary forces calling on the memory of Washington over Lincoln. The left side less so, but still supporting similar ideas. John Brown, RePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted.

i mean let's be real. the reason the 1939 american nazis liked washington is because he owned slaves, and the reason the 1938 American communists liked Lincoln is because he is perceived as having freed the slaves

>>17474
Was America truly founded on Hitlerism?

>>17469
How can you argue Washington was a symbol of wasp identity in the 30s when the bund was flying banners of him lol “let’s say, you’re retarded”

File: 1751774312558.png (9.52 MB, 2550x3300, American Dialectics 2.png)


Nearly every narrative of American history has been so bastardized that I don't even get into the topic unless someone is over the usual posturing and bullshit that happens in these discussions.

Probably the helpful thing to remember is that the President was de-emphasized before the Civil War, and Lincoln takes a stronger role out of necessity but also bent over backwards to please his fellow Republicans and keep his generals happy even when they were drunk as fuck and wanted to undermine Lincoln for getting them involved in this mess. Washington presented himself as the great neutral force that everyone could agree on, while the government was mostly in the hands of the founding generation and they figured out what they were going to do with it (hint: they really don't agree on what they're going to do with it). Also he was a big Freemason and there were calls to make him a king, but Washington rebuffed this for all of the reasons kings are a terrible idea. In many cases, the President was a titular head who was out and about doing things, but the general public did have that strong an identification with most presidents. Washington was an exception because he was Washington but, as mentioned, he was the neutral center everyone could agree on. The real center of the country was Congress and its prominent Senators and Representatives, and the alliances and clubs the most prominent Congressmen had aligned with them; and really this meant decisions were made in the smoke-filled back room and this was suitable for everyone. No one was convinced laws were made entirely by ponderous procedures as a formality, as if that were the entirely of what the law and the state could be. If you tried to tell people that was how government worked, everyone, of every social class, would laugh at you and ask if you are on the dope. The procedures did have a disciplinary effect on the other Congressmen, prevented any one of them from jumping up and down like a retard too much and making Hitlerian proclamations. The President was a man tasked with very important executive business, and usually represented what the victorious party and government were going to push for, but to become President you had to please Congress and play ball, hence why the surest path to the Presidency was for all of American history through Congress. (Trump is not a President, he's a sniveling retard put up for show because this republic is deader than dead.) When Lincoln, who was the most oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



 

What would be a deconstruction of the Saul-to-Paul conversion trope?

I'm asking this, because I'm planning on making my grad school thesis the political use of political conversion memoirs and how the Saul-to-Paul trope is utilized in this context. The four political memoirs I'm using (all of them featuring the subject going from leftist to right-winger) are:

>Witness by Whittaker Chambers

>School of Darkness by Bella Dodd
>Radical Son by David Horowitz
>Unplanned by Abby Johnson

All of these memoirs conspicuously follow the exact same story arch: individual (usually presented as naive) gets involved with an "evil" organization (usually a left-wing political group), they rise up to the group's higher ranks due to the group manipulating them insecurities, they engage in unspeakable acts of evil as a high-ranking member of the group, they have a sudden break with said group, either leave voluntarily or are thrown out, then go on to have a right-wing religious conversion, feel incredibly guilt about what their "naive" self had done, and only ends up being redeemed through exposing or snitching on their former comrades. This trope, when used in a political context, is almost always used by the converts to show their superior authority in understanding politics. Many times they present their political conversions from far-left to far-right as a "good vs. evil" type thing.

My question is, how would this political conversion "Saul-to-Paul" narrative be deconstructed or subverted?

QRD on all the books:

"Witness" – Chambers was a fucked up guy, joined Communist Party USA and was part of its underground network, wife refused to abort their child which lead him down the path of religious conversion, claimed he understood the godlessness of communism so he quit, became a Christian, and then snitched on CPUSA during the 2nd Red Scare ("McCarthyism"). Book is highly melodramatic and presents a highly good-vs-evil Manichaean worldview. Chambers also blames intellectuals for propagating communism in America, heavily promotes Christianity as the only way to save the world from the communist menace, and is overall a sensationalist asshole.

"School of Darkness" – Bella Dodd was an Italian immigrant who longed to fit in with American society and culture, joined CPUSA in the mid 1930s, recruited a bunch of CPUSA-affiliated teachers into the Teachers Union in New York, worked her way up to become very successful in the Party, fell out with the Party soon after Earl Browder got purged, ended up leaving CPUSA and became a born-again Catholic after meeting with Fulton Sheen, Sheen then convinced her to snitch on the Party during McCarthyism as a form of "repentance". Basically, Dodd was desperately searching for validation her entire life. When communists didn't want her anyone she became Catholic and anti-communist and got validation from that crowd.

"Radical Son" – Horowitz grew up being raised by CPUSA-affiliated parents, was raised to believe in communism, became a big name activist in the 60s New Left, worked with the Black Panthers, then had a falling out with the Panthers, accused them of murdering a friend of his, had a complete falling out with leftist politics and embraced Reaganite conservatism in the 80s. Most of his memoir is about "growing up" and realizing the leftist beliefs his parents raised him with were "wrong". He also hates intellectuals and is highly self-righteous.

"Unplanned" – Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood and became very successful at it. She became a clinic director. Then, one day she allegedly witnessed a fetus being aborted on an ultrasound and this destroyed her mentally. She became a staunch anti-abortion activist afterwards. A lot of details in her memoir have been scrutinized by her former coworkers. Her book doesn't have some great metaphysical discussion on the "evils of leftism" as the other three but it's a more contemporary conversion memoiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



 

Post video recordings of lectures and announcements for online lectures.

>inb4 schitzos like peterson or other rightwingers

this is /leftypol/ faggot
>inb4 Richard D. Wolff
all his lectures i have seen so far are just very basic stuff if you find some more advanced stuff post it

I want to focus this thread on philosophy, history and political economy on an academic level.
34 posts and 1 image reply omitted.

>>12529
>>12529
Miss this motherfucker more than you’ll ever believe.

Don't Talk to the Police
>Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials.

Alternative links:
https://piped.video/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
https://github.com/TeamPiped/Piped/wiki/Instances Insert /watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE to the end of the link

>>20135
Oh, someone already posted this. Keeping it up cuz of the piped links though.

Beyond Chavs: Imagining a working class politics for the 21th century
Owen Jones

bump



 

Okay, let's try this. I would try making this sort of a general threads for a few weeks, then we'd see if they became popular and maybe mods would make /psrg/ a permanent thread.

Thread inteded as a containment place for a discussion of all things religious since I had noticed there was an infestation of a low-quality religious discussion threads recently.

Let's start with the building of a reading list about religion and spirituality from a marxist/general socialist perspective, shall we?
72 posts and 4 image replies omitted.

In my inquiry regarding "mind control", I found three methods that appear viable and readily comprehensible, at least in their basic forms. One is to take advantage of naturally occurring objects and behaviors, out of which more sophisticated tools are fashioned, and the faculty of tool use and the relationship tool-users form with their tools can do its work. This approach is limited since it relies on the agency of the tool-user to be assumed or judged after thorough analysis to ensure the "correct" result. Very likely, human beings being what they are, efforts to control the environment would require depriving the human being of any meaning to their tools, any purpose; or, they would remain imperfect, because humans do not want to be controlled by something that has shown its hostility to their existence. If the tool were truly friendly and brought no harm to anyone, and a human being were willing to invite this type of control into their lives (and there are many who are more than happy to allow this), it could only control so much. It would not be possible, without malevolent influence, to corral the human into something that degrades it or destroys it, without countermeasures inevitably arising or the human afflicted by this lamenting on their sorry condition in the universe.

The second method, and likely the most effective and useful one, is a true dialogue between the controller and the controlled. This is what the most effective extant mind control does. The controller is adept at modulating itself so that the interface is not fettered by pernicious elements. The problem with this is not its limitations. A skilled mind controller of this type really could make someone do anything. The problem is that this method requires the adept controller to attain genuine knowledge and care about the condition of the controlled subject, which means the controller would have to be, by some measure, a "good person". It would also require this controller to accept that the entities they control are what they are, and cannot be pushed towards the most onerous outcomes, or made to do things that are obviously evil. If you make people do evil things, the consequences are that the controlled will be degraded, exhausted, and eventually useless for much other than more evil. We don't get to that problem though because the mind controllers, the apparatus for training them, and the purpose of the mind control, is already malevolent and for the evil. You would thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24578
>machine to tell you what to think, that is on you or whatever pedagogy you received that insisted on turning off your own sense and reason. Computers don't "make" you do that simply by existing or carrying out their instructions.

It can if it affects the information that our sense and reason depends on. For what we call sense and reason are heavily dependent on information that we previously know of. Communism was developed on the understanding of past economic events and history. Adam smith capitalism was based on his analysis on britain history and other things.
The ruling class can simply just modify the computers ai and etc to promote answers that can modify such information. Make it so that this information is biased or in favor of the ruling class ideology. And when the internet, computer or ai is made in such a way to be pro ruling ideology information. Then how can a lot of people be able to use sense, logic and reason to see the truth, if the information that the logic and reasoning uses is mainly pro ruling ideology?
And yes people in the past didnt need to know much. But the information that they did know affect their sense and reasoning. It still affected their plans, their decision making and etc. And we can know this since the ruling ideologies of the past, christianity, confucianism and etc did affect the populations thinking. It shaped how they viewed the world.

>>24578
>Human beings, for themselves, have to maintain some fidelity to the actual world we live in,
Also theres a severe issue with this. Yes humans have to maintain some connection to the actual world. However that connection is quite limited.
Humans, just like in the past, are mostly going to be connected to their local communties. Human also are mainly limited in knowing about things happening in their life span. Thus human viewpoints will be very limited
As such this leaves numerous blank spots which would require exterior sources of information. And this is where the propaganda thing I mentioned here comes in. >>24583
This situation would give a lot of power to the ruling class to use ai computers and etc to shape human viewpoints. For in these blank spots, the ruling class would mainly have monopoly of information. Information which would shape the sense and reason of human beings.

>>24583
Every computer, every algorithmic program, is predictable and can be understood in principle by the user. We expect programs to do particular things, and can ask what the machine is doing even if we don't have a disassembled source code and full knowledge. We never once believe the computer is actually magic, and that is what the ruinous pedagogy insists we HAVE to do. The computer is a machine, and not a particularly complicated machine. So too is the network of these computers fairly simple to understand, even if the number of agents and the command and control of superior users is not immediately known.

I write more about this in The Retarded Ideology. I'm re-reading the first book and I find it remarkable just how well I set up these arguments for the future books, looking specifically at the mechanism-vitalism "debate".

If you're talking about censorship and total control of information, that is handled ultimately by a very human source that insists on forced ignorance. There are many people who are partisans of this forced ignorance, who have resorted to terror and torture to insist information works in the way you believe. All of those people are not made of magic nor possess any special power. They are made of flesh and blood, possessing the same basic knowledge process as any human, and for any of their plans to be realized they can only operate with machinery much as we do. They do not receive any "super-science" or "super-technology" that allows them alone this power, or grants to their machines special power.

The method of information control deployed today is not inscrutable or "unknowable". It is actually painfully predictable. Its "secret" is that it can deploy in any arena an unbearable degree of shrieking and humiliation, so that the public of any and all countries will be cowed into submission. This is the standard Germanic pattern of behavior, because they insist people need to "respect" their disgusting race and their stupid warmongering habit.

>>24584
Humans maintain enough connection to the actual world when their life and future depend on it. If the ruling elite did not invade our homes, break up our families, brag about exterminating and humiliating us openly every day, I doubt the people would care at all if the world is ruled by an oligarchy of rich people or a despot, or hold any particular notion of what society should be in the abstract. The people never valued freedom or a republic, and given the history of those claims, why would they ever value a thing that has only demanded they sacrifice something new every so often? The only thing that kept the peace in the older society is that governments largely did leave the common people to live their life, and delegating slavery and exploitation to private owners.

The great event that brings about "real modernity" is the American Civil War and the end of chattel slavery. The slave power and its allies sought a new way to hold slaves, and the outcome of the war effectively established state slavery and the power of institutions to do what the slave trade did before. The rewritten narrative of history, the one being imposed on reality now, is that immediately after 1865, the corporate state immediately imposed state slavery and this was automatically and "naturally" accepted, and no one could actually have opposed slavery in principle or held any other value regarding exploitation. The true history of the war and the wars that would come after is much larger, involving many competing factions that wanted the future to be things that were all irreconcilable with each other, and could not be agreed upon by any polity. Some wanted world peace, some wanted the great revelation and for Jesus to come down so the Kingdom of Heaven starts, a lot just wanted to go home for food, and quite a few wanted to end the entire social experiment of modernity as it had been conducted up to then. Then of course there were those who saw the future had a long way to go, and the world could very easily be something far more compatible with life and something we would want than what we lived in.

The short of it is that the entire history of the world after 1865 is ultimately traced to the abolition of chattel slavery in America, and the aims of those who want the slave power to be fully restored and want to justify and glorify the slave system. This has less tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 1751270001791-0.png (17.06 KB, 334x304, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1751270001791-1.png (21.38 KB, 364x314, ClipboardImage.png)

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Engels’ On Authority is razor-sharp essay of pure scientific fact—1,386 words—that dismantles anarchist utopianism with upmost efficiency. It takes 5 minutes to read and leaves no room for debate: society itself, revolution, all basic social functions, etc., require some form of authority. This is not an opinion; it is observable fact.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/judgesabo-read-on-authority
Yet here we have some terminally online anarchist penning a 52,000-word monstrosity in response. That’s 37 times longer than Engels’ original piece. The anarchist spends 79 hours' worth of handwriting time (LMAO) crafting this screed. The sheer volume of this "refutation" is itself proof of its intellectual bankruptcy. The Ratio of Copium to Substance is vast, as with all anarchist refutation of socialist theory. Endless semantic quibbling, ("But what is authority, really?") endless circular logic, along with citing hundred other liberals culminates in a pathetic monument to ideological impotence—a 50,000-word confession that anarchism cannot refute Marxism on substance, so it must drown the debate in verbosity. Engels needed just 1,400 words to prove authority’s necessity because material reality speaks for itself—factories need managers, trains need schedules, and revolutions need discipline. The anarchist’s bloated treatise, by contrast, is what happens when unsounded petty-bourgeois individualism tries to deny the objective laws of social organization: an embarrassing tantrum disguised as scholarship, its very length an admission of defeat.

Engels was wrong.

theanarchistlibrary is pretty much a blog platform anyone can submit their diatribes to

>>24547
anarkiddie



File: 1733839025907.jpg (2.92 MB, 1904x2797, BetterThanYou.jpg)

 

A financebro friend from my old school called this morning to catch up after some time and I've come to notice uni education is absolutely shit. He asked for investment funds from his family back then and now has a tech startup. We used to scold him for not pursuing higher education and now all of my acquanitances who went to uni are either struggling to find jobs or wasting away in a low pay 9-5.

What went wrong? Did you benefit from higher education? What did you study if it did? What did you study if it didn't? What would you pursue if you had the chance to go to college again? I wanna hear your experience.
26 posts omitted.

>>24381
>I agree and it's why I will never do a trade, particularly when we as a society don't have a sufficient social safety net for anyone who gets a work place related injury. This is why the trades pay even less than what they pay in actuality. Even then, the per hour earnings of a tradesmen suck for quite a few years.

The real reason why trades pay less is because theyre less likely to have student loan debt compared to degrees.
Also while trades aren't guaranteed cushy living, you have more steady employment

The problem is, trades are looked down upon because people think getting a degree will get them big money more efficiently

>The other problem with the trades is that having completed an apprenticeship in {X} is not as transferable as a bachelors degree in {Y}. Many jobs just require the bachelors. Very few jobs require some sort of apprenticeship. It's why I think tech apprenticeships are a horrible idea. If you end up not becoming a developer, that credential is worthless.


Well, Ive heard from a guy who is an IT guy that the main problem with computer industry nowadays is the lack of hardware skills.
Most IT guys are only trained in software but are unable to troubleshoot hardware issues.

>Further, employers are not going to teach you the skills you need to job hop or keep up with the industry for decades like a degree SHOULD by covering the math, theory, etc. of computer science itself. Many CS degrees don't do that THOUGH. I've met people who were straight up failed by their degrees. I didn't even complete my CS degree until after I became a dev so I think I'm qualified to make this claim.


Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24527
Ya, I know what an LLM is. A lot of people think these chat bots are literally skynet for some reason. Though, I wouldn't say college edu in the west isnt helpful for getting better jobs. Why else in USA would it be as cost prohibitive as it is? USA needs to do something about school cost. Everyone should attend college. People should know shit, and know how to do it. Western academia is just inundated with a multitude of problems and retarded ass ideas.

>>24543
>Everyone should attend college. People should know shit, and know how to do it.


The problem is, everyone goes to college nowadays.
Irony is, we have more adults spending more time in school than ever before and they still cannot function for shit.

I disagree with this libleft idea that college should be mandatory. It's no different from religion

And the irony is, alot of our educational institutions were funded by the church

>>24556
>The problem is, everyone goes to college nowadays.
You're not American. College enrollment todays at like an all time low.

>and they still cannot function for shit.

Cant speak for your country, but that's just the default state of your average American today. College or not.

>It's no different from religion

Lost me there too. College is supposed to actually teach you shit. Not molest you and teach you a form of shamanism.

>>24558
>You're not American. College enrollment todays at like an all time low.

Except I am. Even if not, everyone is going to college nowadays. "All time low" just means relative to a boom-bust cycle.

>Cant speak for your country, but that's just the default state of your average American today. College or not.


It's not just America. It's the average postmodern adult.

>Lost me there too. College is supposed to actually teach you shit. Not molest you and teach you a form of shamanism.


And a lot of molestation does happen in college.
Also, professors will fail you if you dare to correct them or have different methods of problem solving.

And a lot of people working within industries often complain about the incompetence of college educated folk.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



 

I will be very concise, since I know a long, boring post will make you just lose interest.
>fairly normal life, but im extremely bitter against (succubi) m*dels, the glamour, ease,wealth, luxury and globe-trotting they are gifted just cause MUH FACE
>Im in a country that has free university, including med school\ doctor's college, I wouldn't lose any money if I ended up failing
>I tell myself a lot, that only saving others is good enough reason to keep myself alive
Please give me an honest assessment of this conundrum. I AM willing to go through the pain that is med school, AND a career as a doctor- I talked to several people in either field, so I know what it will be like.

Having a medical degree is a sure way to never have to worry about money again as long as you don't go full retard with your spending.

Didn't you post a few months ago? I rember something similiar I thought you definitely were going to med school. Maybe it was someone else

>fairly normal life, but im extremely bitter against (succubi) m*dels, the glamour, ease,wealth, luxury and globe-trotting they are gifted just cause MUH FACE


This is a dumb reason.
I don't feel any jealousy towards those kind of people.
Those celebs have to deal with groomers and corporate assholes trying to steal their rightful pay.



Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
Previous[ 1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /10 /11 /12 /13 /14 /15 /16 /17 /18 /19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /29 /30 /31 /32 /33 /34 /35 /36 ]
| Catalog | Home