mad4u689

Maybe some people actually do enjoy having more free time to do what they like, more than intellectual stimulation (or having a non-mindless career). There is nothing wrong with that. You SHOULD spend your time how you like. If a career isn't spending it how you like it, then... :D

I think I would like to teach math in prisons :D

I don't think sport hunting should be legal. That said, as long as it is legal, I'm all for provisions being made so that the legally blind have the same opportunities as those who have the privilege as being "not disabled" (though I have a huge problem with the word "disability" to begin with... but...)

Okay... my campus recently broke out into a Zombie V. Humans war, and two groups arose: The Braintrust (humans who vowed to never let the zombies get their brains) The Brainlust (zombies who lustfully craved human brains!!)

I don't think there's shame, either, in "a simple life doing what someone else tells you to do." And by not getting excited about academia, I don't think you are necessarily committing to drinking in a pub being the highlight of your life. Surely there are other things besides alcohol and intellectual pursuit that can be important. Deep human emotional connection, perhaps? Romantic love? Eh? You can choose an intellectual lifestyle, but understand that it is not for everyone. It's great if you enjoy it. But if someone truly does NOT LIKE doing schoolwork - why should they continue to do something they abhor just because it is "responsible?" Isn't that just as much "doing what someone else tells you to do" as getting an (arguably) "brainless" job later? You are being incredibly elitist, and I think you should critically examine your judgements about other people :D

:P I consider myself a libertarian, but I am kind of going back and forth between anarchist and libertarian. Ah yeah, I have the same problem. Libertarians have a stereotype for being super-pro-rich, and I don't think I'm... that. I know I'm very liberal (pro-freedom) on most social issues - but on economic issues, I often waver between "GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH OUR FREEDOM" and "Ahhh but our society is so unjust, and everyone should have equal opportunity." It's not that I would ever consider myself a socialist, I think, but an understanding that we should have both freedom and lack of government interference, but also a society (not governmentally) imposed lack of interference by major corporations on our lifestyles, would be sweet :D certainly a more anarchist view than a libertarian one. However, I recognize that while this a noble ideal, it is one fairly impractical to strive for atm.

I tend to wear really, extremely bright colours. I doubt this is surprising :D I buy my clothes from discount stores and, less often, thrift shops. I don't really spend more than $20 on jeans or $10 on shirts. But I think I still look pretty good, and get lots of compliments, because I pair strangely coloured clothes that other people don't want, in unique exciting ways :D I have a lot of fun getting dressed in the morning. Also, I have a lot of shirts that show off cleavage, because I like my cleavage :D

I'd say about a third of them were like that. Very frustrating. Anyways, my score was: Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 6.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44 Since about a third of the questions were stupid, I say take into account a + or - 3.33 error margin. Woo, you are similar to me :D Who would have guessed? :D

That's because you're a certain age. In twenty, thirty years, you will most likely not, and all men most likely still will. Whoa, that's just blatantly untrue. I mean, the supposed sexual prime for women is much higher than the supposed sexual prime for men. (I think 30 versus 18 or something around there?) I didn't say you wouldn't be sexually active. I just said you would be sexually stimulated in a different way. Again, what about chick flicks appealing to emotion in women and most ads try and suck guys in via their eyes? You didn't respond to that. Just from things I've read, it takes romance to get a woman "in the mood" and nothing more than a flash of thigh to get a man in the mood. That's all I'm saying. I would argue that this type of attitude (i.e. that men and women have completely different ways of experiencing their sexuality) is much more harmful and sexist than viewing attractive sexualized Victoria's Secret models. It is more harmful and sexist precisely BECAUSE it is so subconscious and internalized; we often don't even realize there's anything wrong with what we're saying. When you talk about "things you've read," you're probably more likely talking about the stereotypes you have come to internalize after watching TV and movies, reading (fictional) books, and generally living life within our society (in which individuals often carry out the roles that are expected of them by stereotypes, partially as a result of a self-fulfilling prophecy!) I guess what I'm saying is - I think you're wrong. I think that for many women, a flash of thigh will lead to arousal. For many men, romance is necessary to lead to arousal. In my experience, in a fairly radical college campus society in which gender roles are examined critically and usually ultimately rejected (making it an interesting case study, I think, for what happens when you remove many of the gender norms), the number of men and women who seek out and/or are satisfied by purely sexual relationships are about the same. I'm not calling you sexist. I think you are a wonderfully compassionate and aware individual. However, I do think that you (and surely I, as well) have absorbed sexist attitudes that are everpresent in our society. I think that these biases and attitudes are ultimately more detrimental - mostly because we are so unaware of them and thus find it difficult to compensate for them - than are explicit but nevertheless innocent sexualizing of males or females.

That's because you're a certain age. In twenty, thirty years, you will most likely not, and all men most likely still will. Whoa, that's just blatantly untrue. I mean, the supposed sexual prime for women is much higher than the supposed sexual prime for men. (I think 30 versus 18 or something around there?)

If it's bad if it's permanent, then it's like saying smoking is okay if you do it every now and then and don't become addicted. But we both know when you smoke, no matter how few and far between your cigarettes are, it's bad for you in that short time. Also, if you would hear some of the guys that sit around me at school, you would realize that a temporary thing often becomes a mindset. But smoking does permanent damage each and every time you do it - and also (through second hand smoke, odor, etc) can directly harm other people. Temporary objectification of women is pleasurable and does no direct harm to others. (Indirect harm is, of course, more debateable; and clearly my position is that it also causes minimal indirect harm.) The temporary thing does often become a mindset. This is sad. See my response to your next quote :) Sure, but it's a little different as women aren't as visually stimulated as men. I don't know many women that buy men's underwear magazines to [you know what] over the pictures, but I know many in the converse situation. This might possibly be TMI, but I do. As do many of my friends. [Edit] I think this has more to do with feeling sexually liberated within society (many women still don't feel comfortable with their sexuality in today's world and thus underemphasize it, whereas for men, it is expected and thus even overemphasized!) than a lack of capacity for physical arousal. Similarly, for men, their overemphasis of sexuality says more about society's expectations for them than that "all men are dogs!" (and I quote my mother on that point - this was her advice to me upon going to college :P )

Dentists and cashiers aren't portrayed as objects. Using your belief in subjectivity, I don't think this is relevant in any way. Nor do I. It's when we treat women like the point of their existence is to feed our sexual desires that things get fishy. :D There is a very large difference between (a) focusing on one part or trait of someone's existence temporarily (such as their trustworthiness when choosing whether to divulge a secret; their sex appeal when enjoying the physical appeal of someone's body) and (B) treating someone like the point of their existence is this one particular part or trait. Hence, you are suggesting that enjoying objectifying women's bodies while watching the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is treating women like the point of their existence is this one particular trait (their sex appeal). I would argue, instead, that you are temporarily focusing on this one trait for your own reason (personal enjoyment), and can do so reasonably without being unfair to women as a whole, as long as it is (and this is key) temporary and not the permanent way in which you view women.

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77 Hehe, not too surprising here :D Well, I thought maybe I'd be more social libertarian, but ehh!!

It's a pitiful exchange. They are providing a service. Also, to them, it's a job. If I could be paid that much money to model Victoria's Secret, I probably would too! :D Not every woman would choose to - then again, not every woman chooses to become a dentist, or chooses to become a cashier. Certainly there are other forces at play (some people might not have the privilege to easily become a dentist, or a supermodel!), but that is the world we live in currently. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sex appeal being a commodity. I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with sex, either. :D

This might not count as "unique" but... I'm really into Eastern Europe in general :D I'm hopefully going to study abroad in Budapest (Hungary) next year, and I'm extremely excited :D And hope to travel around much of Central and Eastern Europe on breaks :)

Hey.. respect those that are different from you :D :P :D Hehe... I loved when you said they were HOT soon after insane posted about the objetification of women, by the way. :P >.> Women and men (and everyone in between and off the gender scale) are all objectified sometimes. As long as we can understand that in real life, people are complex and not defined by one characteristic (i.e. physical hotness) then... if you enjoy it... (and I, for one, do...) keep objectifying! :D Come on. Those Victoria's Secret models ARE HOT.

Hey.. respect those that are different from you :D :P :D

Yeah, trust me, Victoria's Secret even looks quite good on me, and I am far from being like any of those models! :D

Aww man, I can't believe I missed that! Those girls are HOT.

I think that intelligent people are awesome. I know I'm going to forget people, but some such people I think are especially intelligent include: Dusqi, Insane, GhostRanger, Daan, Adam007, Herr, MPC, runesmithie

That's just blatantly untrue. Most people who commit suicide have told someone that they were considering it before they do. I know there are statistics out there, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.

The majority of low-income intelligent students I'm talking about are never even made aware that these possibilities exist. They never know that they could just apply for scholarships and get in. They don't have guidance counselors watching their back, and their parents never knew about these scholarships to guide them and tell them about. By providing scholarships, private schools (and many universities) get to "feel like" they're being good and helpful and making all these opportunities available, when in reality, they're just patting their own backs.

I think the best thing you can do is just be there for him. Listen when he wants to talk, make yourself available for him. Verbalize how highly you think of him and how glad you are that he's your friend. :)

Hmm. I think this is a good idea, but as with everything, it must be taken with a grain of salt. I come from a background of a lot of privilege. I got a great public school education, and was pretty much force-fed by the system into a private four year college. My high school experience was fantastic, and my college experience even more so. HOWEVER, I'm finally beginning to understand that not everyone is as lucky as I have been. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's possible to overcome your biases, and I encourage everyone on tip.it to think critically about their own hidden assumptions and biases that they just take for granted. (i.e. "Anyone could just self-educate on wikipedia and other internet resources if they wanted, from public libraries!" No, some people don't have the time because they're working two jobs while getting a crappy high school education just to help support their family.) I definitely didn't start thinking critically about my privilege until I got to college. I used to hate political correctness (because that's the cool thing to do), and I used to feel "above" those who lived in inner cities, never considering associating or becoming friends with "such people" who often even commit *gasp* crimes! I encourage everyone to realize what they take for granted - all the power dynamics embedded into our institutions of law and education that help them get further ahead without even realizing it - and then do what is in their power to try to right the system. Don't start with a defensive attitude. Really question yourself :D I'm still in the process, but I feel much more aware. Once you've examined your own privilege critically, do take action. For example, I'm going to be leading a math workshop in a prison next semester, because most people who are in prison have never had the same opportunities to learn math that I have. When they get out of prison, having basic mathematical knowledge is a skill necessary for many job markets, so that they can be rehabilitated into society, breaking out of the cycle and not having to resort to crime again. It's just a small step, but lots of small steps will bring about worldwide change, I hope :D

I'd be careful. That's a lot of real money you're talking about, and I don't think most members of tip.it off topic are very qualified to give good stock advice. I know I'm not, at least. So take what is said with a grain of salt, and remember that it is your money :D, and also consider what happens when you take a risk - sometimes you lose a lot :(