Social DGames Social | V/LA |

[#HBC | Gorf]

My grandpa couldn't operate airplanes in the army or something without a degree. He was fully equipped, just no degree. So his friend gave him a legit bachelor's degree three days later, and that's the story of how my grandfather has achieved the most academically in my family.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ BarDulL

on the topic of the education system in america, specifically upper division colleges and universities, some feel that it is simply a bubble semblant of other economic bubbles in the past;

This perspective is true and untrue. Students who take on debt and aren't able to completely pay it back with interest will regularly default on the loan and the interest will compound. Investors are already trading on the debt with the basis that the interest will have a return depending on whether they bought a debt obligation that has high risk, medium risk, or low risk correspondingly. As tuition hikes, parents become unable to shoulder any pay students aren't able to discharge. As college graduates with a simple bachelor's begin to glut the job pool with no accessible skills, they become unable to find employment in sectors that will sufficiently pay them to meet high interest loan payments.

This isn't an issue again if the loan taken out isn't high and the interest rate is low. However, given the increasing spike in tuition and the fact that average income among American households hasn't seen any corresponding shifts, it can be expected that an increasingly larger amount of loans will be taken out to meet tuition demands and similarly and interest will rise corresponding to an expected increase in default. Note that this also wouldn't be an issue if the students take a hiatus from school in order to pay off their debt or seek career employment with their current level of education. This position of risk aversion becomes more frequent as time passes with the aversion to school as being a reliable predictor of employment therefore stopping a potentially toxic investor from being a toxic investment.

Note that the tech boom and the housing boom involved remarkably large sums of investments that were realized to be toxic in nature when had already been acquired with large amounts of liquid capital. The fact that many IT companies were unable to generate profit margins after burning through their venture capital and the excessive derivatives that AIG and Lehman Brothers were holding in the housing market in mortgage back securities were two forms of toxic investment that were realized too late and were unable to reliably be traded or remarketed as more liquid forms of capital. In the case of student loans, human choice plays a role in regulating risk as the debt taken on by the individual is a concern as they also lose with the investor if their investment does not bear a return since the debt is non-dischargable therefore leading the investment itself to be regulating. Given the current awareness of the situation, I don't think that an education bubble will happen unless the Federal Reserve allows a new type of investment to be created similar to how they were hands off with respect to derivatives regulation and marketing.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

i know of many peers that have yet to attain a job despite having a bachelor's degree and other various qualifications, none of which are visibly inherently flawed. presumably this generation missed the party in terms of academia and the purpose it serves in the real world in comparison to the prior century all the while riding illusions of grandeur and success.

I'm curious on what you mean by the second sentence. Since it can be interpreted in many ways. I think that academia has no interest, in the sense that research papers intrinsically have no marketable value for people to invest in with respect to an expanded knowledge on a certain topic. A large part of value is appropriated on whether it is something that looks like a good investment and has application to our current society. For example, the research on fully sequencing the planet species arabidopsis is irrelevant to modern society. However, learning how arabidopsis works is important in developing theories on other commercial plant species that can be used to increase features such as drought tolerance and produce size through genetic engineering. In this sense, believing that pursuing academia will have a correlation to 'real world' is a delusion unless someone goes into academia with an venture capitalist mindset that they are going to abstract something from it that will be relevant to their success in the 'real world.' This deters heavily from older generations who pursued academia with the sole intention of becoming well educated and acquiring a PhD in their field respectively. To them, they went to University simply because it was the source of premier information and they sought to achieve the pinnacle of studies. I believe it is the baby boomer generation that created the mindset that education is the means to an end instead of the end in and of itself. Which is why we have words like grandeur and success accompanying academia and education.

i mean, when you really think about it, a degree IS a piece of paper that can be attained fairly easily if you know how to play the system, but the end result typically yields lackluster experience in terms of the workforce. regardless of whether or not you actually have a degree, you still need work experience and to truly know how to apply your credential.

I agree and disagree. You can be educated on how to work a position, however the problem is that Universities are uninvolved with companies to the extent that students need to be trained to learn how Company Q complete Tasks X, Y, and Z and logs them for accountability to Agency A, B, and C. Your degree is worthless to Company Q because the particulars of your education have no semblance to the peculiarities of the company. However, the degree represents your potential to adapt and learn a new model of thinking quickly so that the company can confidently bank on the idea that you will be able to quickly complete your hand and conform to be a person that Company Q can rely on to help with their new pile of work or to replace someone else who left or was fired. Schools don't force their students to consider acquiring professional credentials in fields they might consider pursuing because professors have no involvement aside from student feedback on the current job market and the jobs that are in demand for the field at the moment. It's why there are so many pre-meds in the your first biology class and how all of them want to be doctors and drop out and do a history major to go to law school because they are not aware of middle-men jobs for in need communities since no one in the university has any idea of what the market pulse is since they are all holed away in their own niches and petty administrative nuances.

there's no escaping being a grunt at first it seems unless you are stellar and are passionate enough about your choice field. for others, education was or is a matter of abusing short term memory and essentially forgetting it all upon receiving credentials in the hopes of landing a high paying job regardless of their lack of passion...and then they are left with a piece of paper.

I feel that you aren't going to be using a lot of the education you receive because your education is mostly immaterial or irrelevant to what needs to be done. Most of my college experience was survey courses where I memorized and learned a lot of different terms and procedures. However, how many of those are actually relevant towards completing a given task will likely only cover half of a procedure that I conducted in lab that was just a shadow of the full process that needs to be completed. And if my sole task is to do that one task over and over again, will I be considered a 'grunt'? If there is a need for me to sharpen pencils and I have a need to be paid for sharpening those pencils to earn a certain wage, then I meet the demand that is requested of me. Being a 'grunt' implies that I have a lowly position compared to someone that creates pencils for me to sharpen. I think that there is a discrepancy between personal expectations of a job and what actually needs to get done on a daily basis for the business to function or to give the appearance of the business functioning. For someone like me, I don't really have any expectations of a job being fulfilling towards my 'potential' skill set because I'm accustomed to finding everything mundane within a two-week period. I am keenly aware though that pursuing a position that will involve constant changes will increase my self-esteem for my work environment, but I refuse to take on such a position unless I'm offered the next pay scale up because it will completely drain me.

regardless, i feel that an education system of sorts is still necessary and always will be, but the credentials need to be harder to attain and tailored towards specific roles as a means of more effectively preparing people for the real world so that said credentials actually mean something and are immediately applicable. additionally, simplification of the course material and converting lessons into real-world applications as opposed to concentrating predominantly on theory could yield for additional and more pleasant results for those investing their money into the system.

Credentials have the meaning that attaining them confers. Being raise in an accountant environment I assume that this comment is leveraged towards being a public accountant? I find that the credentialing system in fields like networking i.e. Cisco and health care i.e. Phlebotomy are extensive enough to merit their practitioners. However, people who exclusive pursue these certifications for a job get dragged down because they are over shadowed by four year degree programs such as computer science and nursing that incorporate both applications as in job training and applied course work. Getting more of a pulse on real-world application means involving employers to be willing to share NDA related material to students who might not be interested in the company and allowing their work flow to get out there to business rivals.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

then again, that would only encourage sheepish behavior and wouldn't directly promote intuition or thinking outside the box. or would it? it's a curious thing, really. it's just legitimately lame to see all these people i know fall short of success after achieving their degree, which is why i'd like to see the system changed.

The system itself however is the business market place. The amount of funding that went into the human genome project and stem cell research is on a completely different level than to research foreign species. Even funding for foreign species have different levels of funding depending on if we're talking about them being an endangered species. The amount of government funding for biofuel was insane. Meanwhile there was a huge private interest in grass, yes developing good turf grass for golf courses and resorts as well as for landscape marketing to people in the Hamptons who wanted a green front lawn that required as little effort as possible for them to maintain on their part. So here you have some of the smartest people working to develop the best grass to look good on someone's lawn. It's not that attitudes going into academia have changed to be from a market perspective. It's that academic has restructured itself to meet the demands of the market place. So I can't fault students going into university looking to make big money when they get out. Because academia is building itself as a research tank as an added value for the government and big business.

there's also the people who decide to attain bachelor's degrees in history or political science, but end up never following up with a degree in law. some majors simply aren't highly applicable and don't pay well; where's the monetary incentive unless you're in the top 10% percentile of your botany major? are you content with becoming a teacher considering everything you hear about regarding their atypical pay? was the student loan debt truly worth it? as for me, i happen to be of the lucky sort with a mother who is a bit of a work horse in accounting/business management, which happens to be my choice major. subsequently, i will be able to make use of this resource and will probably not be weeded out since landing internships/job experience isn't difficult on my end. i'm aiming for practicality with my degree because developing an applicable vocational skill while seeking out passion is an inherent reality for those seeking to survive...most of the time. but i do sometimes wonder just how applicable this degree will be, and if it's all actually going to be worth it in the end, and if i'll actually be passionate about the job/s i get. but i do know one thing: there ain't no gettin' offa this train i'm on so long as the feasible reality of a well paying job is at the end of the line.

Due to you having a major closely related to money, I'm sure that you'll figure everything out.

 

[#HBC | Nabe]

Double edit @ all my euro players out there, i know the generally accepted term for "college" across the pond is "uni," but what do you call it if it's a school that's not a university? Like, I go to Miami Dade College. That's not a university, so it can't be called "uni." What's it called?

Speaking on behalf of Eurolite (Canada):
We call that "college".

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

I expected canada to call that "college," seeing how were neighbors and whatnot.

 

[#HBC | Nabe]

No, I mean, we call university 'university' here, and anything else 'college', at least in the cool provinces.

 

[Handorin]

We have that distinguishment as well, but it's very interchangeable, but usually called college as a broad sense.

 

[Kantrip]

No, I mean, we call university 'university' here, and anything else 'college', at least in the cool provinces.

can confirm, live in cool province

 

[#HBC | Nabe]

We have that distinguishment as well, but it's very interchangeable, but usually called college as a broad sense.

Never, here.

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

If your going into IT like I am, college is pretty dang important. I wouldn't know how I work with an OS system, Database or how to properly handle support tickets if I didn't.

Actually from what I hear a lot of IT jobs come more from certification (training) rather than a degree. Not that there isn't any jobs that you can't get with a degree though.

i honestly thought about getting into IT, how are your experiences so far with it?

It depends entirely on how complacent you'll be with the fact that there will always be higher paying computer jobs out there. Also, IT people generally don't do programming, which I find to be a huge bummer. Programming is one of the most enjoyable parts about working with computers from my experience.

Oh, for comparison, the level all students enroll in in America is similar to VMBO with a touch of HAVO.

Enrolled at what level? College? High school?

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

High School.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Actually from what I hear a lot of IT jobs come more from certification (training) rather than a degree. Not that there isn't any jobs that you can't get with a degree though.



It depends entirely on how complacent you'll be with the fact that there will always be higher paying computer jobs out there. Also, IT people generally don't do programming, which I find to be a huge bummer. Programming is one of the most enjoyable parts about working with computers from my experience.



Enrolled at what level? College? High school?

Some if my classes are certification courses or rather intros to them.

You're correct here but you still need some basic skills to work off to get to that point.

Database is a weird one but one I am doing ATM.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Oh fun. Doing databases myself (sql). Have a deadline this monday and I don't understand enough yet to deliver a good product :D yay bad teachers

 

[BarDulL]

christ almighty @ #HBC | Acrostic . i mean i know i made a small wall and all but you had to go and write up the great wall of ****ing china in response. ugh...wall...too big... takes too long to...respond to...*runs*

 

[BarDulL]

alright jokes aside and now that i have time:

@ BarDulL



This perspective is true and untrue. Students who take on debt and aren't able to completely pay it back with interest will regularly default on the loan and the interest will compound. Investors are already trading on the debt with the basis that the interest will have a return depending on whether they bought a debt obligation that has high risk, medium risk, or low risk correspondingly. As tuition hikes, parents become unable to shoulder any pay students aren't able to discharge. As college graduates with a simple bachelor's begin to glut the job pool with no accessible skills, they become unable to find employment in sectors that will sufficiently pay them to meet high interest loan payments.

This isn't an issue again if the loan taken out isn't high and the interest rate is low. However, given the increasing spike in tuition and the fact that average income among American households hasn't seen any corresponding shifts, it can be expected that an increasingly larger amount of loans will be taken out to meet tuition demands and similarly and interest will rise corresponding to an expected increase in default. Note that this also wouldn't be an issue if the students take a hiatus from school in order to pay off their debt or seek career employment with their current level of education. This position of risk aversion becomes more frequent as time passes with the aversion to school as being a reliable predictor of employment therefore stopping a potentially toxic investor from being a toxic investment.

Note that the tech boom and the housing boom involved remarkably large sums of investments that were realized to be toxic in nature when had already been acquired with large amounts of liquid capital. The fact that many IT companies were unable to generate profit margins after burning through their venture capital and the excessive derivatives that AIG and Lehman Brothers were holding in the housing market in mortgage back securities were two forms of toxic investment that were realized too late and were unable to reliably be traded or remarketed as more liquid forms of capital. In the case of student loans, human choice plays a role in regulating risk as the debt taken on by the individual is a concern as they also lose with the investor if their investment does not bear a return since the debt is non-dischargable therefore leading the investment itself to be regulating. Given the current awareness of the situation, I don't think that an education bubble will happen unless the Federal Reserve allows a new type of investment to be created similar to how they were hands off with respect to derivatives regulation and marketing.

agreed with first paragraph. tuition is too high which is why i implore people to attend community colleges instead for their gen-ed. 3 years after attending community i have no debt, and, as an aside, i was able to truly figure out what major i wanted to go with. accomplishing such a task is usually difficult without accumulating tons of debt at universities. i would have somewhere close to the ballpark of $23000-35,000 in debt if i attended a standard university instead for my first two-thee years of college, but there was no point in doing that because the education is virtually the same, the networking of course is not but that's an honest to goodness trade i'm willing to make.

second paragraph...i mean if you attend a standard college university with the help of fafsa you're still looking at like $50,000 on average after 4-5 years unless you're a super baller with OP scholarship money. no matter what you're going to have to pay it off with interest USUALLY. and then where's your high paying job afterwards? i'm not saying it's a full-on bubble but it's getting close to it.

third paragraph, i honestly don't think these people are typically responsible enough to regulate the risk of their investments. all these kids are walking into the world of debt with the prospects of becoming elite high paid workers or something similar only to get bodied and subsequently working at target or other various low-end jobs. this is what i mean by how education is semblant of a bubble; people make all these investments with high prospects, but is it ACTUALLY worth it? or are people just not utilizing their skills effectively enough? or humor me, is it something else? lackluster networking or social skills during their 4 years maybe?

I'm curious on what you mean by the second sentence. Since it can be interpreted in many ways. I think that academia has no interest, in the sense that research papers intrinsically have no marketable value for people to invest in with respect to an expanded knowledge on a certain topic. A large part of value is appropriated on whether it is something that looks like a good investment and has application to our current society. For example, the research on fully sequencing the planet species arabidopsis is irrelevant to modern society. However, learning how arabidopsis works is important in developing theories on other commercial plant species that can be used to increase features such as drought tolerance and produce size through genetic engineering. In this sense, believing that pursuing academia will have a correlation to 'real world' is a delusion unless someone goes into academia with an venture capitalist mindset that they are going to abstract something from it that will be relevant to their success in the 'real world.' This deters heavily from older generations who pursued academia with the sole intention of becoming well educated and acquiring a PhD in their field respectively. To them, they went to University simply because it was the source of premier information and they sought to achieve the pinnacle of studies. I believe it is the baby boomer generation that created the mindset that education is the means to an end instead of the end in and of itself. Which is why we have words like grandeur and success accompanying academia and education.

what i meant by the second sentence is that, in earlier generations, going to college at a very low cost and getting a well-paying job in turn was common in the last century. a lot of people are still riding on this idea that education is still very much worth the investment and the subsequent possibility of being consumed by debt as a trade-off for getting a piece of paper that might actually not do anything for them at the end of the day. if not already clear, this is what i mean by 'riding illusions of grandeur and success.' they all want to get paid well but only end up accumulating a huge debt and then opting to work at IKEA or whatever when they realize they can't idle around looking for a job that they probably aren't ready for to begin with; this is why internship experience is extremely vital in the long run.

I agree and disagree. You can be educated on how to work a position, however the problem is that Universities are uninvolved with companies to the extent that students need to be trained to learn how Company Q complete Tasks X, Y, and Z and logs them for accountability to Agency A, B, and C. Your degree is worthless to Company Q because the particulars of your education have no semblance to the peculiarities of the company. However, the degree represents your potential to adapt and learn a new model of thinking quickly so that the company can confidently bank on the idea that you will be able to quickly complete your hand and conform to be a person that Company Q can rely on to help with their new pile of work or to replace someone else who left or was fired. Schools don't force their students to consider acquiring professional credentials in fields they might consider pursuing because professors have no involvement aside from student feedback on the current job market and the jobs that are in demand for the field at the moment. It's why there are so many pre-meds in the your first biology class and how all of them want to be doctors and drop out and do a history major to go to law school because they are not aware of middle-men jobs for in need communities since no one in the university has any idea of what the market pulse is since they are all holed away in their own niches and petty administrative nuances.

i agree with this, but i'd still like to see some kind of job guarantee program for students and their bachelor's degrees. maybe that's asking too much but the motivation is certainly there for companies to fund schools to have said schools build them people who are fine-tuned to do roles the company requires. i mean i think it's great that bachelor's degrees show adaptability but they don't inherently delve into the core rationale of why people go to school, and it's really to prepare them to get a job.

I feel that you aren't going to be using a lot of the education you receive because your education is mostly immaterial or irrelevant to what needs to be done. Most of my college experience was survey courses where I memorized and learned a lot of different terms and procedures. However, how many of those are actually relevant towards completing a given task will likely only cover half of a procedure that I conducted in lab that was just a shadow of the full process that needs to be completed. And if my sole task is to do that one task over and over again, will I be considered a 'grunt'? If there is a need for me to sharpen pencils and I have a need to be paid for sharpening those pencils to earn a certain wage, then I meet the demand that is requested of me. Being a 'grunt' implies that I have a lowly position compared to someone that creates pencils for me to sharpen. I think that there is a discrepancy between personal expectations of a job and what actually needs to get done on a daily basis for the business to function or to give the appearance of the business functioning. For someone like me, I don't really have any expectations of a job being fulfilling towards my 'potential' skill set because I'm accustomed to finding everything mundane within a two-week period. I am keenly aware though that pursuing a position that will involve constant changes will increase my self-esteem for my work environment, but I refuse to take on such a position unless I'm offered the next pay scale up because it will completely drain me.

agreed. i define being a grunt as being someone who is doing a job that is comparatively low-skill that can essentially be done by like 90% of the population. sharpening pencils is definitely grunt-worthy (i'd be surprised if this job wasn't already automated though).

Credentials have the meaning that attaining them confers. Being raise in an accountant environment I assume that this comment is leveraged towards being a public accountant? I find that the credentialing system in fields like networking i.e. Cisco and health care i.e. Phlebotomy are extensive enough to merit their practitioners. However, people who exclusive pursue these certifications for a job get dragged down because they are over shadowed by four year degree programs such as computer science and nursing that incorporate both applications as in job training and applied course work. Getting more of a pulse on real-world application means involving employers to be willing to share NDA related material to students who might not be interested in the company and allowing their work flow to get out there to business rivals.

that's true, perhaps the course material could be limited such that the inner workings of the company aren't inherently revealed? maybe a middle ground between conceptual work and practicality can be met. i know certain accounting agencies do this, like liberty tax (which i don't recommend btw, but that's besides the point), that print books and hold class sessions to teach people their line of work and what not and offer them their state-certified PTIN upon completion. except of course said sessions occur outside of universities.

regarding accounting, i will more than likely get my CPA immediately after getting my bachelor's.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

tuition is too high which is why i implore people to attend community colleges instead for their gen-ed.

This statement could NOT ring any truer. Why do ******* INSIST on going to big name schools early if they will have a significantly rough time paying for it? And I'm talking like if I don't go to XY University I won't be able to go to college and live out my dreeeeeeeeeeam bull****. I see that ALL the ****ing time at my children's theatre and it's insulting when I tell people that I go to the school I go to and I get "oh well that's okay" or "well that's nothing to be ashamed of" as a response. It's like why do you even have vocal chords?

 

[#HBC | Nabe]

Have I talked in here about Man of Steel yet? I saw it fairly recently. From what I understand, most problems people have with this movie are related to how they handled Superman, the mythos, the characterizations etc. I don't care much about the specifics of Superman.

My problem with this movie is that every single aspect of the film-making process itself was wrong. It looks like a first-year film student borrowed a very nice camera, and wrote a shooting script that was entirely new-age camera directions, then wrote scenes to fit the camera movements. My personal favourite was the pan to lens flare and deep zoom on an effects shot, followed by ANOTHER pan to lens flare and deep zoom too close to that same effects shot, then held on and shaken for 15 seconds as if it were being filmed handheld. But we can't forget the scene where the very tall Daily Planet building falls very slowly, fitting squarely down between other buildings, onto running people on a very straight street, so that Lawrence Fishburne can have an extended hero sequence (likely due to a rider in his contract). Or, there's the scene where Superman very slowly lets himself fall from a hole in a spaceship back to Earth without looking where he's going, arms outstretched in Jesus mode after talking to the character who's the God parallel for too long, then catching Lois at the very last possible second, who he knew was also falling to Earth very quickly while he was having his leisurely chat and slow fall. (Likely due to a rider in the God parallel's contract this time; this actor also gets to physically save the day several times when he's dead, as a hologram computer interface.)

Aspects of Superman specifically aside, the main character is portrayed and possibly written intentionally as a sociopath, and given no growth or even endearing character moments to make him likable. But the 20-minute Russell Crowe-centric prologue sets up antagonists in one big action scene, and they show up again in the 40-minute single-action-scene conclusion that never ends. This leaves over ninety minutes with the sociopath having nothing to do, so a couple tricks are utilized to make it seem like something is happening.

The first trick is in editing: the whole 90 minutes is non-linear storytelling, so that the audience might not look at their watches. Clark's an adult, he's a kid, he's an adult, he's a teenager, he's a kid, he's an adult in the future, he's an adult in the present, etc. For the second trick, humanity is set up as the real antagonist of Clark's story in lieu of the absent evil dudes, and he is forever having trouble dealing socially with every human he comes across... including his foster parents, somehow, even being closed off from them every moment of the movie, including when one of them dies (he lets it happen). Every new cut to a different time in Clark's life showcases anew how terrible humanity is and how poorly they treat him, from children right up to very old people. (But at least he gets back at one man by putting a tree through his transport truck and only source of livelihood, hinting at mild psychopathic tendencies that will surface again towards the end.) Humanity's dark and varied villainy sets up the God and Jesus scene towards the end, when Superman decides that despite how terrible humanity is, it's not their fault because they're dumb apes, and in great sacrifice he'll happily die for their sins get punched a lot and shot at and fight tentacle robot monsters for their sins. (P.S. That actually happens.)

The scene where Clark destroys his ENTIRE small hometown by trying to beat up other invincible Kryptonians there is bad enough, and of course the human army is there to uselessly fire on both sides and remind us who the real antagonists are. But there's one scene that really sums up every problem with this movie. Towards the end of the never-ending final action scene, one of the antagonists is seconds away from murdering a terrified sobbing family huddling in a corner. They are about to be disintegrated and die in agony. Superman snaps this particular antagonist's neck to stop it from happening... then immediately breaks down sobbing in Lois' arms as she gently consoles him. Meanwhile, the confused and still utterly terrified family is presumably still huddling in the corner, unsure if they're safe yet as there's still a super being in front of them with unknown motives and the city is falling down around them. But we'll focus instead on Superman's ORDEAL of having to kill someone evil, because that family was just plot fodder, and showing him maybe helping them up or comforting the crying child would ruin all the hard work they put in to portray him as a sociopath.

Then, Lois and Clark proceed to kiss a lot, for her because he saved her life and because underneath all her capable exterior lies an object that indiscriminately desires affection, and for him because she's the only human he sees enough of himself in to think he cares about. Also, he's hired as a reporter now despite no previously shown experience in the field. Teehee, he thinks, I've got glasses on now, and he smiles at the private joke, smiles for the first time in over 200 minutes. Credits.

 

[BSL]

**** superman.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

I like Superman, but we've done this before.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Pharell Williams is bad and overrated.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

Pharell Williams is bad and overrated.

Finally, a Gheb post I can agree on!

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

That's the ****ing happy ****** right?

***** if you're gonna ****ing call your song happy AT LEAST make your song major.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Never seen man of steel yet.

 

[#HBC | Nabe]

Someone buy me premium.

k

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

You are a g.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Now we match, Nabe! =D

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Dang was gonna bu Ryker Premium welp.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Someone buy me premium ?

 

[BSL]

Dang was gonna bu Ryker Premium welp.

you could get it for me, it'll be just like old times

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

smh @ this thread

 

[Orboknown]

It feels weird realizing that sleeping till 6 am is now sleeping in for me.

 

[Handorin]

smh @ this thread

Poor folk united

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

MoS sucks

Preach it, sister.

Also, how many people here have seen true detective?

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

also I didn't see man of steel but saying he gets no growth then ranting on how they spend 90 minutes on his past and why it turned him into who he is (growth) sounds weird to me.

 

[No Hetero]

Nabe head V/LA for surprise filling 800 pots with soil

also I didn't see man of steel but saying he gets no growth then ranting on how they spend 90 minutes on his past and why it turned him into who he is (growth) sounds weird to me.

They don't spend the 90 minutes showing him engaging with humanity, or becoming attached to any one person. They spend the 90 minutes showing him get **** on repeatedly by every possible archetypal character in the same way every time. You don't see into his head; he just quietly stares down everyone who mistreats him, and only talks to his parents and his dog when they show him affection (still staring though). His one type of interaction with other people that he initiates is saving them when they're in mortal danger, and apparently he likes this so much that he decides to take hero on as a full-time job. Why? Who knows? He doesn't voice anything, he just scowls and saves people. My only plausible guess based on what's shown is that he gets some kind of satisfaction from saving people who hate him, and/or he might be trying to save people to get them to like him, like he's in Earth's friend-zone trying to trade gifts for love.

 

[#HBC | Kary]

Have I talked in here about Man of Steel yet? I saw it fairly recently. From what I understand, most problems people have with this movie are related to how they handled Superman, the mythos, the characterizations etc. I don't care much about the specifics of Superman.

is it hot when Lois and Clark kiss though

I mean, i'm not planning to watch the film either way, but a part of me is kinda curious.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I never found Superman to be an engaging super hero aside from his super abilities. All of which grew very stale as I grew older.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I never found Superman very interesting until David Carradine explained it in Kill Bill. Now I think he's pretty cool, but he'll never be my favorite.

 

[BSL]

I never found Superman very interesting until David Carradine explained it in Kill Bill. Now I think he's pretty cool, but he'll never be my favorite.

Superman is NOT unique in that regard though. I've always thought it was a silly quote.