These organisations exist in their splendour because society gives them a higher perceived status than the community college next door. This status will quickly drop if graduates become unhireable.
Stanford’s war on social life
251–260 of 402 posts
Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#252You don't have the "spontaneity" of going to a shop anymore, everything is delivery. You don't share public transport anymore (and what is that if not enjoying living in "community" with other people?), you take an uber (and when it's finally robotized, you won't even talk with a driver anymore). You don't ask for directions or recommendations, you just look at maps or yelp or whatever. Social life is being destroyed by exactly that same people, and I find those complaints quite cynical.
Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#253In the old times you lived in your physical environment and did not spend an inordinate amount of time in social network or the internet.
Students would have been more defensive with regards to their bastions of freedom against the administration if this felt closer to them- that's my guess
Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#254Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#255What a sad story. I can really imagine being there and have fun, be creative and „grow up“ to be an adult with a purpose in life. But now, this sounds like a soulless place, replaceable, replaceable like myself. Every student should be the same, no variations ... for what. I don’t get it. This makes me very sad.
Soulless is the essence of postmodernism. I have no doubt if the admin can remove the traditional buildings, they will replace them with all cubical buildings. Yelling for diversity and at the same time replacing everything with grey color rectangles and squares is their cultural revolution.
Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#256The only problem with this article is that it tries to tie the loss of culture and fun with increasing diversity or something. As if including black people is gonna make it less fun? No, the loss of fun is due to financialization and lawyers getting involved with everything and trying to make everything about maximizing profits and fear of lawsuits. Got nothing to do with equality. The DSA for what it’s worth, throws…
Let us hope that just as the 1960s followed the 1950s or the Roaring Twenties followed Victorian prudishness these people see their values trampled underfoot. Let freedom reign.
Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#257I think I'm close to an outside observer - I didn't go to Stanford and don't have a dog in that fight, as the saying goes. I don't trust the conclusions of this article. It starts with a story about a frat which filled their building's first floor with sand, so much that they had to rent a bulldozer to relocate it to the campus lake. Then they call the Stanford admins killjoys for not supporting it. But... of course…
The sand gets wet and sits in the water. It's sand, i.e. dirt. In case you weren't aware, there's already dirt at the bottom of all lakes.
> What about running the bulldozer over the Stanford campus?
The ground would get slightly compacted and maybe some grass torn up. That's why they got clearance from the person responsible for that, the groundskeeper.
> What if someone is injured by the bulldozer?
They will learn an important lesson about bulldozer safety.
> I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training.
If you ever find yourself running a bulldozer rental place, you're free to not rent to them.
Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#258[flagged]
From what I know, this wasn't about multiculturalism and SJW-style "equity" and more about destroying any and all student groups that showed a modicum of independence from the administration line. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone at some point mouthed some SJW platitudes, since that's a cover for everything nowadays.
Re: Stanford’s war on social life
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funny/sad thing is that mostly our society doesn't actually work that way -- we just believe that it does. You can absolutely have a highly successful career and life, for a wide variety of definitions of successful, without attending a top college, and while having "interesting" life experiences for all sorts of definitions of interesting. There are many paths through life even in our current bureaucracy-ridden…
It really depends on your definition of success. If you know enough Stanford grads - you’d know that many of them will consider themselves failures in life if they haven’t founded and IPO/sold a company for $100m+. I know quite a few like this… I also know quite a few who did it and only think they’re a success in life because of said event.