[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 563 KB, 374x354, 1385492582228.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4388661 No.4388661 [Reply] [Original]

I'm assuming /lit/ deals with the following quite often, so I'm asking here.

How do you deal with teacher's being subjective when grading your creative writing? I study Engineering but we still have mandatory "creative writing" courses, which you need to get at least pass in, and if you want scholarships and actually get into a good university (basically next tier education over college where I live) you need at least B+. Yes, even in shit that's unrelated to what you're going to study.

Now, I've been told I have a nice grip on the language, but my opinions are "not nuanced enough". That's one of the criteria for top grade in writing when it comes to essay's on personal opinions and topics.

I have pretty non-PC political opinions, which are often viewed as not being nuanced, or dumb. However, I tend to reach my conclusions differently than most others that share that opinion, and I address the most common counter-arguments, so I feel I am indeed being nuanced enough.

How the fuck do I deal with this?

>> No.4388679

>>4388661
This is not an easy problem to deal with. The best way I can think of is to speak one-on-one with the professor and go through the paper section-by-section to find what arguments specifically the professor thinks are unnuanced. I would ask the professor for ideas on strengthening the paper. The most important thing is to be very courteous and at least appear sincere in your desire to improve your writing.

If that doesn't get your professor on your good side, I don't know what to tell you.

Remember it's also possible that you actually do suck at formulating arguments for your positions.

>> No.4388688

>>4388661
>but my opinions are "not nuanced enough"

Sounds like you state things like they are the truth and that you actually know truth. So instead of wonder and inquiry you just tell the reader how it is instead of doing actual research on the topic where you don't know the conclusion. I might be a little to free in my interpretation here, and it's based on my prejudice of you being an engineer

>> No.4388702

>>4388679
Well, I've never had this problem with male professors (My English professor is a man) but with my native language every fucking teacher is woman. I wrote a paper on the myth of the wage gap, which is not only supported by nutjobs in former CSA land, but by respected academics.

The evaluation was done by three or four professors, all female.

Originally the complaint was that the arguments were not nuanced, but when I actually talked one-on-one (Something I requested) with one of them, the major problem was that the arguments were "hard to follow". When asked about the nuance she said that wasn't a problem.

I'd hate to believe it's discrimination, or that my opinion is disregarded because it's not popular. I agree that most people who hold this opinion are retarded, but others reach the same conclusion with sound arguments.

>> No.4388710

you deal with it by not being a nazi faggot

>> No.4388719

>>4388710
I'm not a nazi.

Fun fact, there is no Wikipedia article on National Socialism as a political and economical model that doesn't link back to Nazism, or Antisemitism. National socialism doesn't say anything about Jews. That said, I'm not a National Socialist either.

>> No.4388727

>>4388719
>there is no Wikipedia article on National Socialism as a political and economical model that doesn't link back to Nazism, or Antisemitism. National socialis

Gully gee, I wonder why.

>> No.4388728

>>4388719
It has everything to do with nazism and antisemitism, the fact that you are learning from wikipedia on these issues just shows your lact of culture.

>> No.4388739

>>4388728
>you are learning from wikipedia
Not what I said. I just feel that it's wrong that such a major site of supposed knowledge should treat topics in such a fashion. Nazism should be a part of the article of National Socialism, not the entire thing. Imagine if the entire article on Communism was just a link to the Soviet Union.

>> No.4388767
File: 8 KB, 480x360, huh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4388767

>>4388739
>Nazism should be a part of the article of National Socialism, not the entire thing. Imagine if the entire article on Communism was just a link to the Soviet Union.

>> No.4388796
File: 67 KB, 566x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4388796

>>4388739

>> No.4388817

>>4388739
I agree with you in a certain sense but Wikipedia isn't some definitive catalogue of human thought, else we'd be up for the next two years whining about its various problems of cataloguing and the fact that it's filled with retarded, useless information.

But it isn't. It's a free online encyclopaedia. Who gives a shit? Communism has unfortunately had a lot more actual play in world history than National Socialism, and so the article about it is tied much less to the Soviets in particular. If that's how the arbitrary bias of the authors/contributors manifests itself, who fucking cares? It's Wikipedia.

>> No.4388845

>>4388817
I guess. I was just putting it out there, as a fun fact. Most people don't really think of National socialism as it's own separate ideology, instead just group it with Antisemitic beliefs.

Anyhow, would appreciate if we got back on topic.

>> No.4388867

Drop the class and take it next sem. Ratemyprofessor.com is your friend. Don't sign up with a woman prof, and don't sign up with a radical guy prof either, just position yourself bc college is all about jumping through hoops, you won't win. I got stuck with a bornagain Christian as a Phil prof once and I'm an atheist. What grade do you think she gave me?

>> No.4388872

>>4388867
>What grade do you think she gave me?
The correct one.

>> No.4388878

>>4388845
Can't you just write a non-political piece? Do you have to be contrarian? It'll make it a lot easier writing a piece on legit source material.
After all educational institutions are the arbiters of what interpretation of the symbolic order is right and what interpretation is wrong through grading. Only geniuses are allowed to change paradigms through their rigorous footwork, I don't think you should aspire to be one of those in 'creative writing'

>> No.4388881

>>4388872
Considering I took it to the dean and got it changed from a D to an A I think not (I also heard she got tenure revoked next sem for antiemetic comments lol)

>> No.4388884

>>4388881
Even more convinced it was the correct one.

>> No.4388887

>>4388661
>I have pretty non-PC political opinions

so you're an asshole

1) stop being an asshole
2) come back here and ask a question that doesn't arise from you being an asshole

>> No.4388893
File: 113 KB, 241x255, 1386790374487.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4388893

>>4388702
> I wrote a paper on the myth of the wage gap

>> No.4388895
File: 281 KB, 481x354, 1372631930002.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4388895

>>4388661

If you don't know how to write for your audience then that's your own problem. You're writing for a grade so don't be upset when it's judged as such.

If you can get a good grade while keeping your integrity then i you have it made and i have a deep respect for you. Otherwise decide what's important for you.

>> No.4388899

>>4388884
Thank you for illustrating my point. Some people with set-in-stone opinions get into positions of power and make your life miserable OP, there's ways around them but the most painless way is to avoid them.

>> No.4388912

>>4388899
the little bitch complained because the teacher didn't subscribe to his religion of atheism

>> No.4388920

>>4388899
There's a difference between doing a paper on how enlightened you are by your own intelligence and doing a paper on suggesting a well established fact (there's a lot of sociology and economics research about wage gaps) is in fact a myth and I don't think OP Has looked into all of it.

>> No.4388925

>creative writing course
>for some reason I MUST express my racism

real life is not 4chan and some actions can have pretty shitty consequences so just watch out there outrageous politically incorrect boy

>> No.4388936

>>4388925
I'm not racist though, and I have never written anything about race.

I just have a hard time coming up with topics for "opinion" texts when either I A) don't share the PC belief, or B) find it too boring to just write something that has already been written.

I could write about how I think gay marriage is OK, but why? What's the point? I want to write something original. I would never write something that I didn't believe in (I.e. against gay marriage) just to write something new though. So I tend to choose topics in which I hold a controversial opinion.

>> No.4388941

>>4388661

You either write papers that support the positions you hold in qualified or indirect ways, as "challenging x" or "showing x is more complicated," or you write papers so well researched and so well written that you'll be able to show in one-on-one settings that the arguments are cogent and that you showed the arguments to be cogent.

You need to explain what
>I tend to reach my conclusions differently than most others that share that opinion
means.

Your description of your positions and your methods of supporting your positions is suspiciously vague. I suspect defensiveness.

>> No.4388944

lol white male victim complexes

>> No.4388951

>>4388739
>Imagine if the entire article on Communism was just a link to the Soviet Union.

Communism precedes the Soviet Union for nearly a century as a Marxian concept and centuries as a non-Marxian concept. "Nazism" on the other hand is not a pre-existing theory or ideology, it is concomitant to the Nazi party.

Imagine if the entire article on Bolshevism or Stalinism was just a link to the Soviet Union or Stalin. It would make quite a lot of sense, wouldn't it?

>> No.4388953

Without seeing your writing, we can't really help. Of course, if it's not in English, it's unlikely any of us can help.

As far as un-PC views go, you need to keep them out of college writing. It's a lesson anyone who goes to college without being an insufferable tumblr liberal learns. Just write what they expect and don't rock the boat. The way I look at is that this isn't an honest question about your beliefs, it's just a test of how well you can write a response to said question.

>> No.4388967

>>4388941
>You need to explain what
>>I tend to reach my conclusions differently than most others that share that opinion
means.

OK, but I'll do it with an opinion I don't hold, as to not start a shitstorm.

For example, let's say I was against gay marriage. If I was, it wouldn't be because "It's just plain wrong", or "the Bible says it's wrong", which is why I believe most people are against it.

It would probably be something along the lines of citing some statistics, arguments concerning conservative moral values being actually important, whatever. Something to that effect.

In essence, I tend to hold opinions that are classically viewed as "not nuanced" because the arguments most often used are indeed that. However, I use different arguments, which I believe are nuanced.

>> No.4388969

The way nazis and racists try to tone down their opinions by claiming they're simply "politically incorrect" is so so amusing

>> No.4388971

>>4388951
Yes, Nazism is.

I just think that Nazism and National Socialism are different things, by definition.

>> No.4388973

>>4388969
I'm neither of those.

>> No.4388974

>>4388969
Has this guy even given any examples of his views?

The way pseudo-intellectuals jump on anyone they disagree with because they claimed they're simply "politically incorrect" is so so amusing.

>> No.4388977

>>4388936
you don't have to invent a new area of conflict to resolve, just try and resolve or comment on some conflict/debate that is occurring right now

for example, if the topic was gay marriage your problem is probably that you think the only things to write about are "it's good" or "it's bad". This is where you lack nuance.
Look at what people are saying about gay marriage, why do they disagree or agree with it? What are their values? what do you feel is incorrect (in a philosophical sense)? Can you support your belief? What are future directions for discussion? Why do people value what they value? etc.

>> No.4388982

>>4388967
those conservative morals are probably linked to Biblical ones and thus the argument isn't very nuanced

maybe you're just not as smart and deep as you think you are?

>> No.4388984

>>4388967
No college would force you to accept gay marriage because it's still an open issue. Just don't make retarded racist claims or anything that would violate Human Rights and you'll be fine.

And if those statistics happen to come from /pol/ and the ''conservative moral values'' happen to be as vapid and arbitrary as bible thumping, don't blame the PC patrol when you get bad grades

>> No.4388985

>>4388887
why do you read?

>> No.4388990

>>4388977
Thanks, this is really good advice. I'm rather used to writing argumentative texts, which means I'm either trying to prove my position to be correct, or to prove someone else's to be wrong. My texts are not very often "discussions" of a topic, but more often a collection of arguments, and counterarguments, strung together.

This usually means that if there is naunce, you need to eliminate it by showing the cases where the nuance exists are wrong or right for some other, separate reason, which I often find myself doing.

>> No.4388992
File: 45 KB, 255x248, 1384020990960.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4388992

>>4388887
>If you disagree with things I consider to be absolute truths, you are an asshole.

>> No.4388993

>>4388967

>statistics
not opinion, not nuanced, you probably don't understand the stats anyway

>arguments concerning conservative moral values being actually important
this is your problem
it's not an argument to just say someones values are important.
arguments are only interesting if everyone accepts the premises

>> No.4388995

>>4388967
>It would probably be something along the lines of citing some statistics, arguments concerning conservative moral values being actually important, whatever. Something to that effect.

You also need to show the pro gay marriage arguments from their best side, withholding your own bias, and then argue systematically and logically against them, show their inconsistencies or flaws or cite negative impacts that can be directly lead from said pro gay marriage arguments. I do not mean you do a Fox News or MSNBC style smear job like you but an objective and competent critique.

Maybe this is the nuance you lack?

>> No.4388998

>>4388974
>pseudo-intellectuals
just when I thought you couldn't sound any dumber

>> No.4388999

>>4388982
I was just making up something. It might have been a bad example. And I don't think of myself as especially smart and deep.

>>4388984
It's not an open issue here. At all. Now I'm not against it so that's not really a problem.

And no, of course I wouldn't take statistics from /pol/.

>> No.4389006

GO BACK TO POL YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE

urgh, I can't stand you triggering racist fucks

>> No.4389008

>>4388995
No, I do always show the counterarguments in their best light, and I'm very good (I've been told) at the logical reasoning, and showing inconsistencies etc.

>>4388993
>not opinion, not nuanced, you probably don't understand the stats anyway
I don't really know what to say to this.

>>arguments concerning conservative moral values being actually important
>this is your problem
>it's not an argument to just say someones >values are important.
>arguments are only interesting if everyone >accepts the premises
Again, was just an example, and probably a bad one.

>> No.4389009

>>4389006
/pol/ doesn't like me.

>> No.4389011

(same guy)

>>4388990
>I'm rather used to writing argumentative texts
no one wants to read these.
You have to try and contribute to the dialectic with your papers, you want to try and show the other side that their argument doesn't work for them. You don't want to preach to the choir.
Also stop thinking in terms of "correct/incorrect", things are more complicated than that.
Either an argument doesn't fit the facts (inaccurate, unsupported, etc.), it's incoherent (logically fallacious, contradictory, incomplete, etc.), it's damaging (contradicts the original goal, has unforeseen consequences, does more harm than good, makes us get rid of an idea we would rather keep, etc.), and others.

Go on philpapers.org and read some papers to see what philosophical writing is about (which seems to be what your class is asking for).

>> No.4389015

>>4389008
>Again, was just an example, and probably a bad one.
well then think of a better one.
people are willing to help but you have to cooperate

>> No.4389019

lol engineer babby can't accept that he isn't a good writer despite all evidence to the contrary, attributes his poor grades to oppression

>> No.4389021

You know there's no way we can answer your thread without having an idea of what "non-PC" thoughts are, right?

You can be saying everything from less welfare to killing all jews.

>> No.4389023

OP, please post an essay you have written. Put it on pastebin and link it here.

>> No.4389024

>>4389008
>I do always show the counterarguments in their best light

Are you sure, do you invent their arguments or cite?

>> No.4389025

>>4388998
I'd say it's very pseudo-intellectual to assume you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you is inherently immoral (or at least, a Nazi or racist), despite your only knowledge about them being that their opinions differ from you own. That's a common way to act as though you are an intellectual without having the ability to think critically about others' points of view.

Where did OP say he was racist or a Nazi?

>>4389019
To be fair, I get the impression English isn't his first language and that he lives in a non-Englished speaking country.

>> No.4389031

>I have pretty non-PC political opinions, which are often viewed as not being nuanced, or dumb.
They almost certainly are.

>I tend to reach my conclusions differently than most others that share that opinion, and I address the most common counter-arguments
Example? That's the only way we could help you.

>> No.4389035

>>4389011
>Also stop thinking in terms of "correct/incorrect", things are more complicated than that.
I understand that. However, I often find it uninteresting to write about things that I cannot make a clear case for. I feel there is little worth to be had in a text that does not argue for a certain conclusion. Perhaps that's a flawed viewpoint to have.

>Either an argument doesn't fit the facts (inaccurate, unsupported, etc.), it's incoherent (logically fallacious, contradictory, incomplete, etc.), it's damaging (contradicts the original goal, has unforeseen consequences, does more harm than good, makes us get rid of an idea we would rather keep, etc.), and others.
But then how would one go about writing about others opinions that you don't share? I tend to construct logical arguments based on facts, that counter the original arguments.

>> No.4389039

>>>/pol/

so sick of these pol invasions

>> No.4389050

post your paper

>> No.4389056

>>4389021
Well I live in a heavily socialist country, so my free market opinions are non-PC here.

I am not anti-Semitic, I am not homophobic.

I am against so called "third wave feminism", but not against equal rights.

I don't believe in reserving positions for minorities and women, which is also considered non-PC here.

I guess in short I could just say that no major political party in this country supports my views, but semi-major ones in others do.

>> No.4389057

>suggest you have right-wing thoughts in the vaguest way possible
>people will assume the worst and (understandably) tell you to avoid writing about them
>start claiming this is censorship and pc has gone mad etc

It's like the oldest bait ever

I'm surprised you people are falling for it

>> No.4389060

>>4389023
They're not in English.

>>4389024
I cite.

>> No.4389063

>>4389057
I'm not actually right-wing though.

>> No.4389064

>>4389035
at this point you need to post some of your work. Since we're talking about your argument rather than your writing, just do a quick translation and post it.

I'm not saying 'don't make a clear case', but you're not going to single handedly disprove gay marriage, patriarchy, etc. etc. whatever in a college paper.
Pick a niche issue that you find interesting, work it out, find out where the facts/stats/values/etc lead you, see what the consequences are, state anything that could be investigated further

>> No.4389065

>>4388719
neither will you find anything on marxist historiography that doesn't reference violent revolution or Bolshevism. Its fucking integral to understanding it in context, and jumping on that anecdote to make an underhanded pseudopolitical point makes you look childish and will grant you nothing but eye rolling if you continue it in anything

>> No.4389066

>>4389035
>I feel there is little worth to be had in a text that does not argue for a certain conclusion.

I might know what your problem is. This is an interpretation on your replies.

In the humanities, contrary to engineers, we do very bad science of we start by having a conclusion and then building the arguments to fit said conclusions. This is a really good idea if you are building hardware or programming software.
The problem is that you can connect the dots in the humanities in anyway you want, read Platos critique of sophism for reference. Interpretation is not an exact science so we compensate by being "nuanced"

>> No.4389072

>>4389056
>so my free market opinions are non-PC here.
lel

>> No.4389074

>Through my superior logic I have come to the conclusion that Jews are behind the emasulization of modern men and the promotion of Negros. The holocaust didn't happen and Muslims will take over europe soon.

>> No.4389076

>>4388710
>>4388727
>>4388728
>>4388767
>>4388796
>>4388887
>>4388925
>>4388944
>>4388969
>>4388982
>>4388993
>>4389006
>>4389019
>>4389031
>>4389039
>>4389057
Just think, OP. All this shitposting because you mentioned you had some "non-PC political opinions."

>> No.4389082

>>4388739
you...you realize the "nation" in national socialism is germania, right? Nazism is the NATIONAL SOCIALIST german worker's party. All other parties are a deliberate imitation. Antisemitism, aryan nationalism, and oppressive authoritarianism are as integral to it as christ is to christians

>> No.4389084

>>4389056
>Well I live in a heavily socialist country, so my free market opinions are non-PC here.

What country is that?. If it's the US or pretty much any European country then in one sentence you've demonstrated that you have a very loose grasp of 'socialism'.

>> No.4389085

>>4389076
Go to /pol/ and say you only have PC political opinions. Similar backlash. Conclusion: never write about anything, because at least one 4chan board will find it annoying.

>> No.4389087

>>4389076

>>4388727
>>4388728
>>4388767
>>4388796

aren't shitposting on his "non-PC" views,
but his lack of understanding of nazism and

>> No.4389088

>>4388936
What, specifically, have you written on. Also, provide some excerpts if possible

>> No.4389089

>>4389056
>my free market opinions

There's your problem.

>> No.4389090

>>4389082
Not even a Nazi, but that's hardly true. That like saying all communists are trying to emulate the USSR, which is also a clearly false appeal to fears of Soviet Russia.

>> No.4389091

>>4389074
Too bad OP's major is engineering, not economics.

My teachers would have loved that.

>> No.4389093

>>4389056
Shit nigger, we might not be able to help, in your country you might literally need to write within "the party line" our idea of 'academic suppression' might not be synchronous with your situation.

I'd say keep being a rebel it's to the detriment of your society if academic grading is politicized in a systematic non-arbitrary-bias way.

>> No.4389094

>>4389082
>you...you realize the "nation" in national socialism is germania, right?
Not necesarilly. Otherwise National Socialist parties wouldn't have existed outside Germany, or "Germanian states".

Nazism, yes. It's just short for the ideology of the NSDAP. National Socialism, no.

This is just a definition related issue though.

>>4389066
This is a good explanation to me. I double major in Engineering and Mathematics, so I felt I had the logic down. Perhaps I should just aim to "contribute" to something, than argue for a position.

>> No.4389095

>>4389090
All fascists/totalitarians are not trying to imitate Nazi Germany, but all National Socialists are

All communists are not trying to emulate the USSR, but all stalinists/marxist-leninists are

>> No.4389099

>>4389056
1) get out of your non-PC/PC dichotomy, it's absurd and no one thinks like that.

>I don't believe in reserving positions for minorities and women

2) You'd have to do some serious heavy lifting to support something like this and not come off as a racist/misogynist asshole.

>> No.4389105

>>4389084
It's a European country. I live in Sweden, if it is of interest to anyone. And yes, I understand it's not socialist to the extent of some of the third world countries. Still, if I say "cut welfare" here I'm a racist.

>>4389088
I've written a text discussing the arbitrary notion of law, I've written a text critiquing certain parts of feminism, I've written a pro-free market text, and a text concerning the wage gap between men and women, and between ethnic groups.

>> No.4389102

>>4389095
I think a better comparison would be national socialists to communists and neo-Nazis to Stalinists/Marxists.

>> No.4389104

>>4389094
>Otherwise National Socialist parties wouldn't have existed outside Germany

No, but the first National Socialist party that the other ones stem from, and hence their namesake, does. If they try to imitate it, that's all they're doing

>> No.4389107

>>4389099
>2) You'd have to do some serious heavy lifting to support something like this and not come off as a racist/misogynist asshole.
>it is now sexist to think women aren't inherently more deserving of jobs
>it is now racist to think that non-white people aren't inherently more deserving of jobs
>it is now racist and sexist to think that whit men might be the best candidates for some jobs.

>> No.4389108

OP, I don't know where you live but I'm 95% sure you're being paranoid.

Just chill nigga goddamnit

>> No.4389109

>>4389105
This is a creative writing class?

Post excerpts, intros if possible. It may be political professors, but your writing may just be stiff

>> No.4389110

>>4389107
OP here, just want to cut in to state that that's not my post. Just in case of shitstorm.

>> No.4389115

>>4389105
>Sweden
You just said the worst country possible, prepare to have your anus ripped apart by a thousand angry liberal arts majors. Sweden is a fucking utopia for the average /lit/ poster.

Enjoy your defunct country in 20-ish years.

>> No.4389116

>>4389099
Well, in response to 2), I believe we should judge based on individual merit, rather than race, or gender. The free market would punish people who discriminate and pick worse candidates.

>> No.4389121

>>4389105
>Sweden
>tumblr, the country
You're fucked.

>> No.4389128 [DELETED] 

>>4389102
Stalinists and Leninists were the ones who assumed power, so obviously they're not analogous to neo-nazis.

National Socialism wasn't an ideology that existed before the Nazi party, so it makes no sense to compare it to communism (let alone Marxism)

In Hitler's times most people didn't even refer to National Socialism as an idea, it's a contemporary thing. An umbrella term for the actions of the party itself, etc. It's concomitant with it.

I could understand someone saying Marx and Socialism are to the USSR what, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolutionary_movement were to the Nazis, and even that is kind of pushing it

>> No.4389131

>>4389102
Stalinists and Leninists were the ones who took power, so obviously they're not analogous to neo-nazis.

National Socialism wasn't an ideology that existed before the Nazi party, so it makes no sense to compare it to communism (let alone Marxism)

In Hitler's times most people didn't even refer to National Socialism as an idea, it's a contemporary thing. An umbrella term for the actions of the party itself, etc. It's concomitant with it.

I could understand someone saying Marx and Socialism are to the USSR what, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolutionary_movement were to the Nazis, and even that is kind of pushing it

>> No.4389140

>>4389105
>I live in Sweden

It's difficult for me to give you advice when completely disagree with all of your opinions. I would also take issue with you calling Sweden 'very socialist' when you consider that Sweden in one of the most economically competitive countries in the world. You also have to factor in the fact that Sweden does have one of the highest standards of living in the world. So you're contrarian views may come across as narrow minded or 'edgy' considering how much worse it could be.

I honestly think the only way would be to read something you've written. Maybe just a couple of paragraphs.

>> No.4389145

>>4389115
>believing in American jingo

>> No.4389146

>>4389099
hypothetical argument that I hope will start a small, reasonable discussion:

Given the axiom that the mean utility of all potential demographics in the labor force are, at birth, equal (meaning different races or sexes are not inherently more or less capable of providing a service) and that certain demographics have been politically and socially disadvantaged to the point of being less preferred than other demographics, is it not sound economically, long term, to provide minor, short term non-meritocratic benefits to disadvantaged groups in the reasonable assumption that it will put them at equal footing in the long term and be, therefor, beneficial for the economic availability of the labor force for the greater betterment of all?

>> No.4389148

>>4389140
I disagree, Sweden pays for its many advanced social services via aggressive taxation. That may not be out-and-out "we socialist now" but it could definitely be called a "socialist attitude" or similar. Tax rates there can get as high as 60%.

>> No.4389153
File: 39 KB, 310x266, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4389153

>>4389146

>> No.4389155

>>4389140
Well, I think it's socialist based on a few things. First of all we had a socialist party running the country for almost 70 years straight. Second, income tax and sales tax here is pretty huge. Third, it is common to disturb the free market (e.g. hard liquor can only be sold by the state), reserving positions for minorities, increasing women's paychecks artificially, etc.

Another thing I'm for is private gun ownership, but that's also considered wrong here by a lot of people.

>> No.4389165

>>4389148
I see your point. However, Sweden remains a capitalist country despite being left of centre. 'Heavily socialist' implies something like the USSR or North Korea.

>> No.4389166

>>4389155
So you want Sweden to be more burger?

>> No.4389173

>>4389166
Not OP, but I'd say Sweden needs to go back to being more Sweden.

>> No.4389180

>>4389173
Like the United States of Sweden ? It seems like you have a history of extensive social programs.

>> No.4389183

>>4389155
Social Democracy is not 'heavy socialism'. Be happy that you live in a country with an exceptionally high standard of living.

>> No.4389184

>>4389173
Disregard
>>4389180

Didn't read "not OP" for some reason.

>> No.4389245

>>4388878

Thought provoking. Worth reading.

>> No.4389253

>>4389085

Nah, /pol/ at least would hear him out.

>> No.4389277

>>4389253
This. Go there, it's really fun and intellectually stimulating.

>> No.4389363

>>4389277
Whenever I go to /pol/, I learn something.
Whenever I come here, I leave angry.

>> No.4389380

>>4389140
> I would also take issue with you calling Sweden 'very socialist' when you consider that Sweden in one of the most economically competitive countries in the world
higher tax/GDP than fucking Cuba
losing industry left right and center
>You also have to factor in the fact that Sweden does have one of the highest standards of living in the world
Below Ireland. Massively expanding industry and(formerly) good education brought it to that level. Not the policies that followed after that.

>> No.4389383

>>4389148
With sales tax included, the taxes start at around 65%.

>> No.4389385

>>4389183
Then Sweden is not a Social democracy.