So now that STEM was BTFO, what should we do instead?

STEM is incredibly problematic though.

Wow. Just wow. I feel dumber after reading that.

she may be right about fluids

Good. Fucking science rapist.

FAKE.

>Newton's rape manual
I just figured out how to make Physics I interesting to college freshmen

Except that this French feminist got an article related to her comment on this equation.

Then why hasn't this bitch
" Prove or give a counter-example of the following statement:
In three space dimensions and time, given an initial velocity field, there exists a vector velocity and a scalar pressure field, which are both smooth and globally defined, that solve the Navier–Stokes equations." and collected her 1mil? All it takes is a vag apparently.

I don't get it though

Is he violating nature? Is that the idea?

>I don't get it

You need to take some classes on intersectionakity your racist, sexist, white male scum.

I can't believe I've just read that. The world is truly unjust, some brown kid in some 3rd world country is busting his ass trying to build some sort of radio, meanwhile we have people like this in the west complaining about privilege.

When people worship STEM because of its claims to productivity, they're making assumptions about what productivity even is and why it's valuable that were built for them by forces society that convinced you of their productivity because it benefited those forces.

So for example, saying STEM is worthwhile because it contributes to the economy assumes what appears to be an innocuous definition of what it really means to contribute to the economy, but which was actually arrived at by the influence of the consumer economy that really just uses STEM as a tool to ensure the unequal distribution of economic power, the destruction of the environment with natural resource extraction, the psychological and cultural blandness imposed on us by consumer economies, etc. People act like the productivity STEM is valuable when it's only valuable because it plays a part in the rest of society - a part that seems purely good because STEM fanboys with no deep understanding of society don't try to locate it in its social/cultural/historical context.

It's produced things that have made life more physically comfortable, longer lasting, etc. And for what? So people could have more time and comfort to consume the products of the humanities, in large part. Hell, what did the centuries of development of physics, chemistry, engineering, and math, culminating in the production of the computer, the most complicated man made thing ever built, give up? A toy to consume media with in the form of youtube videos and facebook messages.

Saying STEM produced every meaningful improvement in the human condition is like saying it's the car that you want instead of that object's ability to take you somewhere you want to go. Obviously it'd be harder to get there without a car, but it's little more than a means to an end.

Would rather have clean water, an abundance of food, shelter and resources than feminist critique 2bh.

You're proving my point by making that argument. Making a distinction between those two options misses the forest for the trees.

>post-capitalist
Stoppedreadingthere.jpg

you're right, hating men is essential to having clean water and an abundance of food, shelter and resources

wew there wizard of oz, i think you forgot to put a brain in that strawman

let me make the argument clearer for you then: humanities are fucking useless. your argument that equates mass media and entertainment with humanities is absolutely retarded.

That actually wasn't me, but I'm not surprised that you can so easily be trolled by a teenager with a cartoon, much less that you aren't smart enough to differentiate us based on our writing styles.

> your argument that equates mass media and entertainment with humanities is absolutely retarded.
p much every bit of creative dna in the mass media/entertainment we consume was invented by the sorta artists you think are useless. Where do you think people learned how to make hollywood blockbusters, commercials or logos? Artists literally invented all of it, and then their ideas spread. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that without the influence of the arts, not only would media have died, but capitalism would lack the easily accessible means of communication it uses to sell things, and your STEM ass wouldn't have any firms to be a part of because the economy would fall to confusion.

>creative dna in the mass media/entertainment we consume
>we need humanities to make entertainment!
fucking lmao

>we would lack means of communication
yeah what would we do without satellite communication and the internet, you know?

>no economy with STEM
economists who aren't actually applied mathematicians are often terrible. it's mathematicians doing the real work

You are wrong. Capitalism can and does thrive without artistic types. Just look at how the military works when deployed.

The closest thing to artistic expression is whatever scrawled in the porta johns or unit insignias. Camo patterns used to be a sort of artsy thing, but even that has fallen away to procedurally generated patterns with the ACU and multicam. As it turns out, STEM types are able to take something formerly in the realm of artistry and produce an objectively superior product through methodical, systematic analysis and processes. Everything is designed by engineers with practicality in mind. Aesthetics are not a consideration.

Even within this world of pure pragmatism, there is capitalism. Even when basic needs are taken care of, certain products and luxuries will be scarce and systems of barter and trade arise without any sort of marketing or sales department.

Yeah you're right buddy we really need a whole field of academic investigation to tell us we would rather be fed, healthy and inside a home than the opposite.

Your argument fails terribly because what you're talking about is human preference, which doesn't need to be dictated by academia since it is revealed by individuals choices.
In other words, get fucked commie.

Bruh if you think society would work without advertisers creating demand by using narratives and images to get into people's heads, then I'd direct you to the Soviet Union. Capitalism needs ads to work at the scale it does, and the people who make them learn how to do it either by looking at art directly or by consuming the influence indirectly.

Who said anything about academia? I was defending the value of the arts, basically. Has nothing to do with academia.

Art doesn't tell us what to do with those tools either faggot.

STEM and education allows more people to aquire skills that arent building or growing food. this is good and its like metal gear solid Fulton soldiers with skills for your base, you need a variety of people with skills to help out your growing base. High skills like medicine can be traded and valued.

University institution is fraudulent as fuck especially the academics though but then again is pulling your arm to go...or are they?

What should be considered but never taught in school because of reasons is this:
1. Would you still apply to a university if THEY told you that the job isnt guaranteed?

2. IF you never would have to work a day in your life because you won a lottery or was Gasby in modern days, would you still contribute in some way? keep in mind that spending money is contributing.

My humanities professor explained the difference between a college and a university:
A university is supposed to make you worldly and understanding and tolerant. You may be working with all sorts of life and making business with them. You carry that with you.

A college is for specialization.

That being said, you have these spoiled white kids fucking shit up and gaining positions:
youtube.com/watch?v=uDSffcVIVFg

under r8d post right here

you're absolutely right that the fetishization of "productivity" and "contribution to the economy" is a form of neoliberal propaganda. It's a false religion whose end goal is to get us to slave away for the high priests (i.e. owners of capital) by making us believe that we *want* to slave away for them. Marx was right about the workings of capitalism but wrong about the inevitability of collapse-he didn't predict the power of state-sponsored mythology in not only subduing the proletarians, but actually energizing them to work within the system. Oh, your boss makes 1000x as much as you? Well, if you work hard enough, you can be in his position too! It's a free market after all!

The military is a socialist program, maintained by the state you troglodyte.

>commies
Being productive means that you do stuff for your fellow human beings that they value since they are ready to pay cash for it. It is obviously good since they express their preference for you doing it.

Which is a much better and much moral position that "I'm alive, so give me stuff even if I don't do anything for you".

>We are here to serve others. What others are for I haven't a clue. -W.H.Auden

fampai, I'm not knocking the Platonic ideal of productivity. I'm knocking the way it's sold as a universal human imperative to entice people to participate in an exploitative system. It's an Orwellian tactic to co-opt a word with a positive connotation to mean "being a wageslave".

Also

>Giving alcohol to a drunk and letting him drive is obviously good since he expresses his preference for you doing it and is ready to pay cash for it

As far as your claim that a transactional view of human relationships is much more "moral" than the alternative, consider the following scenario: let's say that you,me, and 5 other people are trapped on a desert island, and through some way or another, I control all the coconuts. And let's say my only desire in life is to hear Mozart's Queen of the Night-an extremely difficult aria for female soprano. Well, the 5 other people all happen to be trained opera singers, so they all come to me, sing the aria, and in return I give them coconuts. But you not only can't sing, you have a naturally deep voice, so don't have a prayer of being able to perform this aria. Since I don't give you any coconuts, and I give the others just enough to live on, you go hungry and die. According to you, my behavior is a paragon of moral virtue. Since you can't do anything for me (i.e. your skill sets happen not to match the demands of those who control the capital), I have no obligation to give you any coconuts. According to you, morality is the same as "What have you done for me lately?"

>STEM was BTFO
>more stem
More STEM indeed! Vote for Hillary! She's going to invest in STEM and CS to ensure America leads the world in technology! /s

I have a bachelor's in theoretical computer science and I'm a 25-yr-old NEET. The STEM meme fucked me in the ass with no lube. I could have gotten a bullshit degree and gone on to work as a corporate tool, now I'm stuck on Veeky Forums.

No, what immoral is showing your sorry tourist ass at the island of a very brave farmer who's so dedicated to his job he's growing cononuts in the desert and having the balls to demand coconuts without having the decency of being a cute trap with a high pitched voice.

In all seriousness, you're reversing the propositon: the moral thing is taking the disposition to be sure you'll be useful to other people. In your case, learning how to grow coconuts on a desert island.

But surely you concede that not all things that could be considered "useful to other people" are economically remunerative? For instance, being a stay-at-home mom. My point was that what's "useful to other people" often gets conflated with what is useful to corporations.

Someday people are going to wake up and realize how most of modern "economic theory" is utter bullshit. There will be a revolution in economic theory when people finally realize economics is the biggest & realest game to ever exist, and start applying GAME DESIGN ideas to the economy. I'm not talking "Game Theory" here-- "game theory" is a method of examining decision-points to come up with optimal choices, i.e., it looks to figure out which answer to any question is the "most logical".

Game DESIGN is the design of games to make them fun, fair, and balanced. In the case of real-life economics, we want FAIR markets (not free markets, fuck that), and balance between players (employers/employees). Game design is a perfect fit for managing economics because it, unlike most other disciplines, considers the human aspect as well as the literal rules of the game. "Game theory" fails to take into consideration the human aspect, and therefore fails the test of practicality.

It's easy to see why game design would be useful for economics: Let's look at a question that (afaik) doesn't have a good answer in economics: Why do niggers spend their money on the latest iPhone instead of paying their electric bill? From an economic perspective it really doesn't make sense, and as a result many economic theories fail to account for it or require convoluted explanations & mental gymnastics in order for the theory to predict that action. From a game design perspective, it's simple: The player wanted to have the phone more than electricity. Game design also allows us to consider that it is in fact the PERCEPTION of the phone's value that is the cause, rather than the item itself.

Wealth is ridiculously OP and nobody seems to care. We don't need communism, we need rational limits on wealth.

>Wealth is ridiculously OP and nobody seems to care. We don't need communism, we need rational limits on wealth.

You said it yourself, those who accumulate massive wealth just have good judgement.

>intelligence is OP!!!

Capitalism kinda breaks down in very small systems. But luckily, modern society isn't small. There's never really one skill in demand at a time, there are several hundred. People make livings on etsy. And there are people who are paid to do psychic dentistry. I knew a heroine addict who made her living operating a roadside rest stop.

Deforming a problem can go too far. I think you've hit that functional limit with the coconut analogy.

>For instance, being a stay-at-home mom
If you're a stay at home mom, your husband is paying for your living expenses, so no I don't see those.

>Which is a much better and much moral position that "I'm alive, so give me stuff even if I don't do anything for you".
This statement is predicated upon individuals having the capacity to do something useful for others.

However that isn't always the case in modern society. In ancient times, individuals who had nothing to contribute to society could go out and figure out something to do, or they could hunt and try to be self-sufficient. They had open lands and resources to take, resources which hadn't been claimed by others.

In modern times, society is much more dense and controlling. Individuals can't necessarily find something to do because there are no spare resources laying around for them to use to produce something society would find useful. In modern times the society controls what opportunities are available, and thus it behooves the society to "give people stuff even if they don't do anything for society", lest the individual turn to crime in an attempt to wrest control of resources & opportunities from others.

This argument is implicitly true by the fact that an education is provided to citizens for free. After accepting the argument, we need to move on and question just how much society owes to the individual-- it's open to discussion as to how much of an education is necessary to contribute to society, or if there are other measures society should take to properly equip individuals to make contributions.

>intelligence is OP!!!
>implying wealth equates to intelligence, or vice-versa.
Let me know once you get out of high-school and lose that edge.

Yes, to accumulate a massive amount of wealth you must be intelligent. You are the one stuck in high school.

Paris Hilton.

Her money is nothing compared to what the recording executives made.

It was not meant to be an analogy of capitalism; it was a refutation of the claim (in the post above mine) that there is anything intrinsically moral about tit-for-tat transactions.

And yes you are correct that in "real life" there is never just one skill in demand. But there are also more than 5 people in the world. Yes people make livings on etsy etc, but this is confirmation bias. How likely are you to hear about these people vs someone who can't hold down a job of any kind?

And furthermore, I doubt anyone will crack the Forbes 400 selling trinkets on etsy. Part of my point with the coconut analogy was that the market price of any given skill is, from the employee's perspective at least, rather arbitrary. Yes people make livings on etsy, but other people make twice as much writing computer programs, and probably have a much more comfortable lifestyle, simply because they happened to have been born the with aptitude to master a specific skill that happened to have been in-demand at the time. Is it morally acceptable that a person's living standard should be determined in large part by market forces which operate with no regard to his or her well-being? And should humans serve the market or vice versa?

In other words, he says
> STEM majors don't understand the humanities

The humanities are great and all, but if you spend $150k to go to college to study the humanities your have wasted your time and money because it won't get you a job. You don't need to major in the humanities to understand them. Could you imagine if everyone who majors in math is as bad at history as people who major in history are at math? That's just silly. Humanities are easier and therefore can be learned without going to university.

That is a social arrangement that has nothing to do with the economic system. After all, the husband wouldn't need to pay the living expenses if the wife received to take care of the kids

*if the wife received a salary

no. please no. this is a joke right?

>However that isn't always the case in modern society.
It's true, but getting a STEM education pretty much guarantees you'll know how to do something useful for other.

Of course it's part of the economic system. Just because it's not a corporation salary doesn't mean it's not a voluntary transfer of money and goods.

OK then instead of a housewife, how about a single mother (who makes enough to not qualify for welfare)? Surely taking care of her kid(s) counts as providing value to others, but she receives no economic benefits from doing so.

Google it m8

It's real

Yes yes, we get it, meta-narratives and all that. I'm not going to pretend that modern STEM educational systems and cultures don't have issues, but this shit is not a solution. The humanities are capable of interesting things, true, but they are all too often enslaved to ideology, to obscurantism, and to cliques. For all its issues and flaws and strange focuses, STEM and its practitioners are a concrete metanarrative that produces mechanisms of reality, wheras the humanities are ultimately about creations of meanings and ideas that touch reality obliquely. Lyotard and Derrida and ugh, Baidou build machines of semantics and concepts,and it's not easy to test them. It's all post-hoc rationalization and a lot of feel-good bullshit and orgies of jargon,built more to impress people than to reflect reality.

I throw the Sokal affair in your face,OP. Your community can't even tell when it's being bullshitted if the bullshit hits enough notes in its internal checklist of post-left, post-logic talking points. At least STEM learns from its fuck-ups and makes verifiable advances. It's building itself,slowly but surely,into a temple to meritocracy and achievement. The humanities are by contrast an idol built of envy and hatred,sustained by false notions of superiority and brillisance.

What's the Falcon 9 of the humanities? What great meaningful work of social commentary or post-colonial analysis can touch me as viscerally as seeing that exquisite figure of aluminum and fire roaring into the sky,knowing its purpose and promise? Why should I discard my meta-narrative for yours?

My meta-narrative is a torch whose fire is fueled by reality, yours is a fun-house mirror in a rotting shack,full of charlatans and rat shit.

But ANOOOOOON none of that matters, what matters is living as an enlightened bohemian and reading books filled with pretentious, nonsensical bullshit with a strong left-wing bias and a hard-on for communism! Clearly, this bad old way of doing things is corrupt and awful to the core and just ignore those qualitative improvements in everything from disease mitigation and technological advancement to educational access and freedom of expression, what we need are post-post-modern analyses of Shakespeare's works from the perspective of the African diaspora and radical feminist dialectics on the Space Program, because those rockets are SUCH phallocentric symbols of the Western cult of the masculine!

WE HAVE TO BURN IT ALL DOWN user

IT'LL WORK THIS TIME, WE PROMISE!

And then what? What are you going to do in the mean time?

Probably a hobby or other activity I enjoy.

Certainly not going to read into the post marxist symbolism of xir's menstruation though.

That's not really true. Very very few people study STEM and have no education in the humanities. The opposite of the english major who just "can't do math" is just about non-existent.

Also, the reason you go to college is to get a job. Humanities degrees will often not get you a job (and are definitely less effective to this end than STEM majors).

> At least STEM learns from its fuck-ups and makes verifiable advances. It's building itself,slowly but surely,into a temple to meritocracy and achievement. The humanities are by contrast an idol built of envy and hatred,sustained by false notions of superiority and brillisance.
>Pouring this much purple onto a Veeky Forums post
Confirmed for non-STEM degree (English/Lit, Philosophy?) NEET wishing he'd majored in STEM.

You have a decent argument, but your flowery language does not impress Anonymous. In particular, I find:
>STEM and its practitioners are a concrete metanarrative that produces mechanisms of reality, wheras the humanities are ultimately about creations of meanings and ideas that touch reality obliquely. It's all post-hoc rationalization and a lot of feel-good bullshit and orgies of jargon,built more to impress people than to reflect reality.
to be a well-written and compelling argument. However, the rest of your post is questionable and I'm not going to quote specifics because you went overboard on the fancy terms.

STEM has increasing problems with the whole meritocracy thing. People don't research what will advance humanity, they research what will get them funding. There is increasing pressure to publish research that will produce a cool headline, because somebody with cash is going to look at that headline and go, "Wow this needs funding!" So STEM is subject to the same effects of human ego as the humanities are.

As far as having a monument to the achievement of STEM vs. humanities, you need to realize that the humanities' monuments are revolutions in cultural thinking that take place over decades, if not centuries. The advent of STEM is itself a product of the humanities-- the Renaissance, empiricism, rationalism, etc. Without such advances in thinking there would be no science.

She will in time though. Pretty much everyone would financially help their mother in need or if she has issues when she gets old.

(me)
P.S.

>What great meaningful work of social commentary or post-colonial analysis can touch me as viscerally as seeing that exquisite figure of aluminum and fire roaring into the sky,knowing its purpose and promise?
I know that feel exactly, user. I live in the suburbs of Chicago and on a clear day I can stand on high ground and see the Sear's Tower some 25-30 miles away. Living in the Great Plains of Illinois I've never seen a mountain-- so to see something rising above the horizon from that far away is quite impressive, and doubly so to know that it was built by men.

However, there is something even greater that was a product of the Humanities: The United States of America. Imo the Declaration of Independece is the most important document in the history of law & government. Here is a country that was DELIBERATELY FOUNDED to serve the people. I don't believe there is another country on the planet that can say the same thing; most other countries were founded because a group of people living there got together and wanted to set down some rules to keep things orderly... there was no choice involved, it was a matter of necessity.

The Declaration of Independence isn't really that important because it has nothing to do with the US government. I'd say the Constitution is absolutely one of the most important documents. It lays out the outline for the federal government and includes rights of US citizens.

>Could you imagine if everyone who majors in math is as bad at history as people who major in history are at math?
What do you mean "if"?

>stem fags actually believe this

just because you're a failure and chose a shit degree doesn't mean the field is completely worthless. you could have gone into normal cs and made >300k starting.

your failings != failings of STEM

the humanities should just fuck off

>normal cs and made >300k starting
Veeky Forums is for 18 and up

...

Frogs?

>theoretical
There's your problem. Programming is a craft. Learn something practical and stop being a fag.

Have you published an app?

Are you constantly adding new code to GitHub?

Do you have a website, with an email associated with your domain name?

What's your portfolio look like?

A CompSci degree on its own doesn't mean shit.

Get out of here with that Extra Credits may may bullshit.

The fact that humanities achieved some great things doesn't imply that all people in humanities are right and that their post marxist fifth wave feminists bs is worth a shit

>I couldn't even get into a CS course so I had to study game design

Bro, its not the field's fault that you cant find a job

All you have to do is be born wealthy.

Intelligence doesn't have much to do with it.

Jargon. Did they really need more than a sentence to discuss their hate for STEM?

Humanities-fags like showing off their eloquence

>tfw started the thread this was in
I'm sorry

>eloquence

More like impotence.