Meryl Streep's Golden Globes Speech

[Spectral]

Why are you so offended? Aren't you commonly crying on here how every non-STEM should major in STEM?

No. Here's a post of mine referring to people that study 16th century poets:

I'd actually argue that they're more than mildly useful. When people single out literature or art history or similar humanities for scorn, it really irritates me. These are disciplines that have legitimate rigor and require understanding historical, political, and social contexts of the period being studied. Preserving this knowledge, understanding it, and using it to understand the world around us is a perfectly sound thing to do - I don't want to engage in some ridiculous campaign to shame historians and other preservers of knowledge into learning petroleum engineering because it pays better. That's about as anti-Enlightenment as it gets.

That said, there are nearly worthless disciplines - it's just that classics and history aren't it.

On career choices:

Obviously it's better advice for young people to say, "get an engineering or math degree", but equally obvious is that not everyone can do engineering and mathematics for a living. There's nothing particularly wrong with liberal arts disciplines and some of them are quite rigorous. There are plenty of jobs that value the thinking ability and depth that comes with these - if someone's struggling with their liberal arts degree, it's probably not because of the degree.

On art degrees:

What's with the hate on Arts degrees? Various art majors have obvious application such as graphical art. The much-maligned Art History major is a degree that has significant rigor and I'd argue that it's quite important that a civilized society preserve and understand the knowledge and culture of the past. If education dollars are funneled to departments engaging in the preservation of culture, I would consider this a huge win for education.

Maybe you're thinking of someone else altogether? Or maybe posts from a really long time ago or something. I've pretty consistently supported liberal arts for years on end though. I take shots at unscientific social sciences (sociology being a favorite on this front) for trying to ape the trappings of science while having no rigor, but this has nothing to do with liberal arts.

You promote this pathetic, insular bubble all the time trying to tell people to live like you and you're suddenly blown off a cliff because some equally pretentious individual from "high culture" essentially says what you always say all while you're crying about the E's being pretentious pricks?

Whatever. There are plenty of people that do all sorts of non-STEM things that are pretty useful and non-pretentious. Hollywood actresses that feel the need to give sanctimonious talks and take shots at other people's hobbies at an awards ceremony (an already self-congratulatory circle-jerk) are not among those people.

[Deleted]

Does anybody really care what Meryl Streep opinion is anyways?
Its like the opinion of my bakker or mailman.

[zerocarbs]

For god's sake shut up about Hillary.

Hillary is the definition of irrelevant at this point.

Triggered much?

No we live under the rule of law and the fact that she didn't get elected doesn't mean she shouldn't be held accountable. Rich or poor, people should be held accountable for their actions.

The fact that we have so many leaders that get away with so much heinous shit only emboldens the corruption to continue.

[muto]

Lol @ her comparing Natural Talent (Genetics) to Learned Talent. Anyone can be an actor, but good luck playing in the NBA if you aren't tall, and lanky. Athletes are way more skilled.

[Irian]

Triggered much?

No we live under the rule of law and the fact that she didn't get elected doesn't mean she shouldn't be held accountable. Rich or poor, people should be held accountable for their actions.

No, you juvenile. I'm pointing out the fact that Hillary is absolutely irrelevant to Streep's comments and the conversation as a whole. I'm sick of people defending Trump by comparing him to an irrelevant person.

Also, good job completely disregarding my entire post to go on some mindless spiel about Hillary. That's what you have to do to keep telling yourself that you support your overgrown cheeto of a president elect, huh?

A little secret for you: people never liked Hillary. Even most democrats didn't like Hillary. The only reason people supported her is that she wasn't this clown who is making an ass out of himself and his entire country. I don't give a damn if Hillary rots in jail, she probably deserves it, but she's irrelevant now.

The fact that we have so many leaders that get away with so much heinous shit only emboldens the corruption to continue.

I don't know if intentional or you're just that slow, but you literally just agreed with my point. So remind me why you are okay with Trump mocking retards on stage again?

Infracted

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

So what you're saying is that a wealthy woman who has no idea how the middle class lives shouldn't be making comments about a wealthy man who has no idea how the middle class lives? You're aware that there was more people in that Golden Globe audience that came from humble beginnings than the entire Trump cabinet, right?

You don't get to give Trump a pass on this as he was a reality TV Star who still draws a pension from the Screen Actor's Guild.

fair enough. my opinion on trump is rapidly changing since i last checked mmo champ lol so im not gonna argue anymore

[twiddler]

No. Here's a post of mine referring to people that study 16th century poets:

On career choices:

On art degrees:

Maybe you're thinking of someone else altogether? Or maybe posts from a really long time ago or something. I've pretty consistently supported liberal arts for years on end though. I take shots at unscientific social sciences (sociology being a favorite on this front) for trying to ape the trappings of science while having no rigor, but this has nothing to do with liberal arts.

Whatever. There are plenty of people that do all sorts of non-STEM things that are pretty useful and non-pretentious. Hollywood actresses that feel the need to give sanctimonious talks and take shots at other people's hobbies at an awards ceremony (an already self-congratulatory circle-jerk) are not among those people.

You're right. I thought I responded to a PrimaryColor post before work, yesterday. I think I remember who you are--bio/chem-related PhD (who switched fields?), from the Boston area, big cardio guy, etc.? My apologies! That was a big mistake that I really should have caught but instead had you digging up old posts to defend yourself.

Her shot at MMA/football--seeing that some are defending it as just a joke--it's an illogical joke solely based on insults. You get pity laughs from such a remark. What's the funny part? That MMA/football fans are meat-heads that don't understand art? It makes no sense particularly as football fans have lost so many conservative fans because of NFL athlete politics. It's a disservice to what she was trying to promote which really did have validity given President Trump's growing obsession with media.

[zerocarbs]

No, you juvenile. I'm pointing out the fact that Hillary is absolutely irrelevant to Streep's comments and the conversation as a whole.

This thread is about Meryl Streep's hypocrisy politics. I still don't understand why you're getting so triggered at the mere mention of Hillary.

I don't give a damn if Hillary rots in jail, she probably deserves it

You must have an IQ of at least 80 to form that conclusion. Congratulations!

So remind me why you are okay with Trump mocking retards on stage again?

Oh gee I don't know... Maybe because making fun of someone isn't worthy of time in prison?

Infracted