Tucker Max

<p>
[quote]
And tell nspeds that I graduated from the University of Chicago...in
three years...with highest honors. If he's smarter than me, he's
welcome to try and top that."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said Tucker is not intelligent, I simply said he is an intellectual inferior. I never said he is an intellectual inferior in comparison to me, but in comparison to Saul Kripke:</p>

<p>Kripke nearly invented algebra on his own by the fourth grade, wrote papers on modal logic before he graduated from high school, and was offered a teaching position at Harvard math – but he declined since his mother wanted him to first finish high school and college first. While an undergraduate at Harvard, he taught graduate students at MIT.</p>

<p>If Mr. Max is smarter than he, he is welcome to try and top that.</p>

<p>That is right, Mr. Max, for a "highest honors" graduate, you seem to write with poor grammar. The proper expression is: "If he's smarter than I, he's welcome to try and top that."</p>

<p>Duke Law School is not that great of an accomplishment. For a man of Mr. Max's caliber, I would have expected better. Was his LSAT score low or something? Was he accepted at HLS, but turned them down off of some absurd generalization? Let me guess, the girls in Cambridge were a little too homely. Guess what, Mr. Max, Wellesley is just a bus-ride away. There is even a term to refer to it, though it is much to distasteful to appear on this site. It would however, be a welcome addition to the smut – and work that resembles it – that makes a regular appearance on your site.</p>

<p>Edit: Oh and one last thing: I turned down UChicago, so I guess I will not have the opportunity to "match" your performance. Rest assured, intellectual caliber is hardly measured by GPA, though the way things are going, I should end up at a much better position when I graduate;)</p>

<p>This thread is just too funny...I move that we make it a sticky!:D</p>

<p>An A.B. in "Law, Letters and Society?" What kind of rubbish major is that? Now I know why he graduated with highest honors.</p>

<p>Oh Wildflower, Mr. Max has graced us with his presence, let us all bow down to his divine beauty... and his monstrous libido.</p>

<p>Sycophants... or better yet... milquetoasts. Reminds me of that Monty Python skit where everyone thinks that Brian is the Messiah, and Brian states: "You've all got to think for yourselves." What does the crowd say in response? "Yes! Yes! We've all got to think for ourselves." Brian: "You're all individuals." Crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals." Brian: "So don't let anyone tell you what to do." Crowd:"Yes, don't let anyone tell us what to do!"</p>

<p>If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that Debaser is a troll -_-;; I mean, honestly, grow up...people were just posting their opinions on the article, and you blew up at them.</p>

<p>"If he's smarter than I, he's welcome to try and top that."</p>

<p>No it isn't. It's me.</p>

<p>I don't even care about this argument, and I'm not even pre-law, but I do know grammar. It's me.</p>

<p>Really?</p>

<p>
[quote]
When making a comparison with "than" do we end with a subject form or object form, "taller than I/she" or "taller than me/her." The correct response is "taller than I/she." We are looking for the subject form: "He is taller than I am/she is tall." (Except we leave out the verb in the second clause, "am" or "is.") Some good writers, however, will argue that the word "than" should be allowed to function as a preposition. If we can say "He is tall like me/her," then (if "than" could be prepositional like like) we should be able to say, "He is taller than me/her." It's an interesting argument, but — for now, anyway — in formal, academic prose, use the subject form in such comparisons.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adjectives.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adjectives.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, using the objective pronoun for the second word in a comparison using the conjunction than is traditionally considered incorrect if a subjective pronoun would be necessary in the "full" form of the sentence. This rule is very often disregarded in many varieties of English, to the point where a sentence constructed using "proper" grammar can, in some cases, be perceived as artificial or archaic to a native speaker.
"Incorrect": You are a better swimmer than her. (Than is used here as a preposition, as such it assigns objective case to its argument, 'her'.)
"Correct": You are a better swimmer than she. (You are a better swimmer than she [is]. Prescriptivist English uses 'than' only as a conjunction.)
"Correct": They like you more than her. (They like you more than [they like] her.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_(grammar%5B/url%5D)"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_(grammar)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
but I do know grammar. It's me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Stick to band.</p>

<p>[In case you were wondering, my previous account was banned for "offensive posts." Apparently, if you don't phrase insults within the framework of intellectual superiority, science fiction or British comedy, they are out of bounds.]</p>

<p>makemehappy: You're right. They expressed their opinions. I expressed mine. Case closed. I can express mine as colorfully as I choose, that's the beauty of free speech.</p>

<p>nspeds: Of course you'd be the one debating grammar and using Monty Python quotes as evidence, and comparing Tucker Max to Kripke FOR NO REASON (seriously, where the hell did that come from?). Nonetheless, writers often use words that aren't necessarily grammatically sound, but are stylistically the correct decision. And besides, he's not writing "formal, academic prose." The bigger question is: Could you possibly be any more of a pompous toolbag?</p>

<p>Debaser: True, and I respect that. What I think was wrong was that you expressed them rudely without provocation. It's one thing to respond rudely when you've been irritated for a long while--it's entirely another to respond when someone else didn't mean to offend you.</p>

<p>nspeds: Good job man, way to refute...nothing.</p>

<p>makemehappy: It was really the general attitude of DIOGENES and later, nspeds that set me off. Nothing ****es me off more than the sanctimonious and pretentious. It's a weakness, I'll admit--especially since these people would never talk this way to your face in real life. They instead rely on the protective veneer of the internet to act like a pompous douchebag.</p>

<p>I do not have any respect for Tucker Max. In the long run, his contribution to society is highly dubious. I've read through his site and his stories. They are entertaining yes, but they are not anything truly special. Tucker Max joins the long line of pop-culture MTV phenomenons such as "Punk'd," "Jackass," among whose value comes largely from shock value if nothing else. Tucker Max is a little different. His stories are crude but entertaining and he has a certain flare for Comedy. Other than that, I would have to say nothing he writes non-comedicially is I don't care if he graduated from UChicago with highest honors. I’m guessing at least half of all college students could graduate with highest honors if they majored in something like "Law, Letters and Society" in college and I’m certain that almost all engineering/science/math majors would agree with me.</p>

<p>Pop Quiz Debaser: When does the fact that something is popular make it have enduring value? When does having money or an ephemeral fan base of college kids a sign that you have achieved happiness or fulfillment? Studies have shown only need a minimal level of income to acieve a certain standard of happiness. Anything beyond that is relative. By the standards of people who have achieved a certain level of maturity, Tucker Max’s life has little to offer them.</p>

<p>“You could do well to learn from the combined experience that went into his speech. But instead of benefitting from that acquired insight, you've chosen to be a presumptuous **** instead, and years down the road you'll be left wondering why your life sucks so much.”</p>

<p>What combined experience? It was his personal views voiced in an ego-centric, crude way. Lets go over his arguments and debunk each and every one of them.</p>

<p>1) "I know the decision making process that is going on in your mind, and chances are, you are going to law school for the wrong reasons."</p>

<p>Tucker Max can read my mind now? Really? How many people think like an upper middle-class, generation-X white guy? Not many, according to current demographic trends.</p>

<p>2) “1. I don't know what else to do": At that point, when you finish law school, even if you have decided that you don't want to be a lawyer, you are handcuffed to the profession. You have to take that six figure corporate job just to pay off the massive debt you racked up.”</p>

<p>Most people take that 6 figure corporate job because that’s what they wanted in the first place. In addition that corporate job often pays substantial bonuses and yearly salary increases that exceed the typically paltry pay increases in corporate America. If you don’t know what to do, becoming a lawyer is better than the majority of options out there.</p>

<p>3) “2. Most manufacturing and production jobs are moving off shore, and the hard science jobs required to staff them are being taken by Indians and Chinese and other cultures who actually require that their students learn something in science class.”</p>

<p>Wrong, a more truthful statement would be that there are not enough qualified Americans for technical jobs and much work has to be done by immigrants or overseas. If we look at the fastest growing occupations--<a href="http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm%C2%97we"&gt;http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm—we&lt;/a> can see that of those jobs that require a post-secondary associate or bachelor’s degree, almost all would favor those with a technical degree. The only exceptions would probably be elementary school teacher. Maybe Tucker Max should tell all my unemployed friends who majored in disciplines very similar to “Law, Letters, and Science” how valuable their degree is, or employers to compensate such majors with more money because the current economy certainly isn’t.</p>

<p>4) “3. "Everyone says I am good at arguing, so I should go to law school": I cannot recall a single person that has said this to me that I did not make want to punch in their mouth. Being a lawyer has almost nothing to do with arguing in the conventional sense, and very few lawyers ever engage in anything resembling "arguments" in their generally understood form. Beyond that, to be genuinely good at legal "arguing," you must be smart. I have never met a smart person who made this statement. This really is the stupidest reason you could possibly have to go to law school.”</p>

<p>I have never heard this argument before, and it seems like someone who has only thought about a profession in law for 10 minutes would say. Tucker is right that it is a stupid thing to say, and if Tucker is listing it as a common reason, he must know a lot of stupid people.</p>

<p>5) “4. "I want to be like Ally McBeal or Jack McCoy from "Law & Order", or [insert your favorite Hollywood ******** legal character from your favorite ******** Hollywood legal drama]": Being a lawyer is NOTHING AT ALL like what you see on TV. If you don't understand this fact, it means you are an unrecoverable moron, and you should immediately drown yourself in the nearest toilet to save the world the frustration of having to deal with you and your stupidity.”</p>

<p>Once again, I’ve never heard this before, and anyone with a college degree who said something like this probably went to a bad college, or spent too much time with Tucker Max’s associates.</p>

<p>6) “5. "I want to change the world/help homeless people/rescue stray kittens/whatever": you know what's going to happen when you try to change the world equipped with just a law degree and a healthy dose of optimism? Life is going to kick you in teeth. Repeatedly.”</p>

<p>How? I know plenty of happy lawyers who work these jobs very enthusiastically for very little pay. He’s right, in that you don’t get paid much and your effect is usually less than earth-shattering. That’s true for almost ALL fields doing pro-bono and non-profit work. </p>

<p>He makes the spurious argument that noone in his class ended up doing public work as an example of how a law degree will chain you to a corporate job. Many top schools have varying loan forgiveness programs for those that enter the public field, and if you really want your work to be service, you can probably pay off your debts after a few years of private, corporate work. Once again, Tucker Max exaggerates the facts and ignores the many nuances and exceptions to his arguments.</p>

<p>7) 6. "I want to make a lot of money":There is a reason that the legal profession has one of the lowest job satisfaction rankings of any profession in America. There is a reason that so many lawyers leave the legal field: Being a lawyer--especially a lawyer at the type of big corporate firm that pays so well-- SUCKS.</p>

<p>Tonly 4 are still practicing law. Five years out of law school, and only 40% are still doing what they racked up a six figure debt to learn how to do. I don't really follow anyone else in my graduating class because most of them were worthless pricks, but from what I understand, the others are just like us: Most are now doing something else.</p>

<p>YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED A JOB OUT OF ANY LAW SCHOOL, MUCH LESS A JOB THAT PAYS SIX FIGURES. They aren't going to tell you that at law school receptions, but it is the truth.”</p>

<p>Once again, Tucker overgeneralizes and makes a specious argument. His argument, in now way, refutes the fact that lawyers make a lot of money. He just goes on a long, idiotic rant. Lawyers are compensated quite well and their per-hourly earnings are among the highest of all professions. The fact that many of his friends are no longer practicing law could also be quite due to the fact that a law degree is useful for many professions and provide more options than most professional schools, at least after a few years of practicing law.</p>

<p>I also highly doubt that people think they are guaranteed a job out of law school. For example, USNews, a very popular source of information, lists the interquartile range of salaries for recent graduates of all the law schools (or at least, it use to). It is quite obvious that a 6 figure salary is not even guaranteed at certain top law schools like UPenn where the 25th percentile is 80k. </p>

<p>8) "If you think you have a good reason to go to law school, the best advice I can give you is this: Work first. Preferably in a law firm, either as a paralegal or a secretary or even a gopher. Do it as a summer intern or full time for a year or so after undergrad. Explore what it is actually like being a lawyer, not by asking lawyers or reading books, but by immersing yourself in the actually day to day life of a lawyer."</p>

<p>This is such obvious advice and is true for any job. It’s one of the main reasons people do internships over the summer during college.</p>

<p>9) "All this being said though, I had a great time in law school itself. Law school is a ****ing joke; if anyone tells you different they are either lying or they are stupid. It's REALLY easy. By second semester of my first year I'd stopped going to class, and by second year I'd stopped buying my books altogether. I had many classes where if my exam where to pick my professor out of a line-up, I'd have failed. How do you think I got all these great stories? Not by going to class. My friends I went out 4 nights a week it was so easy. Of course, I went to a Top 10 school, which most people don't go to, and I got lucky in that I had a crew of ten friends who were all awesome. I have had several friends go to other law schools, very good ones and very bad ones, and not many shared my experience. And even the ones who did very much enjoy law school, hated their lives after law school. Why? Because they went on to be lawyers"</p>

<p>Once again, Tucker Max makes a huge logical leap. Top 10 law schools are typically very easy with few people failing, but very few high marks given because so many people are filtered out to begin with. This is certainly not true for many law schools outside of the top 10 or 14. In addition, Tucker Max shows what a complete tool an idiot in this statement. If he had put in the effort, he would’ve probably realized, at the very least, during his first summer interning at a law firm that law wasn’t right for him, or his second summer working at one, which is the typical path for many law students. Instead he yucked it up and bragged about how he passed all his classes despite cutting out for almost an entire semester. And for some reason, Tucker’s best friends, who loved going out all the time during law school, hated actually having to go to work afterwards. What a surprise. And then Tucker has the arrogance to generalize this upon all lawyers.</p>

<p>All of Tucker’s arguments permeate with the idiocy and single-mindedness the internet such an intellectually bleak and un-stimulating . He states all his arguments as if they were unrefutable facts and overgeneralizes based off either anecdoctal evidence or a set of observations that are too small in sample size to provide an substantial evidence to the point Tucker Max makes. </p>

<p>Tucker’s entire post more accurately reads like a huge rant about how his unpreparedness and poor work ethic made him commit to a profession he was poorly equipped to handle. Whats most offensive about it is that he choses to generalize his bad experiences upon everyone else and cherry picks posts and points that agree with his preconceptions.</p>

<p>Unlike Tucker Max, I am willing to admit that not all of my arguments are fullproof or comprehensive. Also, unlike Tucker Max--and his peon, Debaser—I don’t confuse whats popular with what’s true and worthwhile.</p>

<p>I'll address your central point about Tucker Max, that he offers nothing of true value, because that is largely why I responded to this thread in the first place. The speech itself is largely irrelevent, at least for the moment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I do not have any respect for Tucker Max. In the long run, his contribution to society is highly dubious. I've read through his site and his stories. They are entertaining yes, but they are not anything truly special...His stories are crude but entertaining and he has a certain flare for Comedy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Pop Quiz Debaser: When does the fact that something is popular make it have enduring value? When does having money or an ephemeral fan base of college kids a sign that you have achieved happiness or fulfillment? Studies have shown only need a minimal level of income to acieve a certain standard of happiness. Anything beyond that is relative. By the standards of people who have achieved a certain level of maturity, Tucker Max’s life has little to offer them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I was asking what you attributed to personal success. I merely offered some typical responses. But nonetheless, let's assume for a minute that Tucker Max does have to live up to YOUR standard of PERSONAL achievement, and look at what you apparently consider this to be: Contribution to society. In that case, I guess my only question is, do you not consider entertainment to be of value to society? I don't see how anyone could reason that it's not, but I'd love to see you try. Unless you don't really believe that, in which case, I'm not sure what argument you're trying to posit.</p>

<p>In any case, read this if you haven't (I posted the link earlier):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.festeringass.com/archives/entries/our_history_and_philosophy.phtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.festeringass.com/archives/entries/our_history_and_philosophy.phtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, I certainly stand by the idea of entertainment as valuable. But beyond that, do you seriously not see the importance of what's being done on that site? The evolving landscape of content distribution? The reworking of the bloated, problematic entertainment industry in order to unfetter the artist and benefit the consumer? The ambition and foresight that spawned this mission are, to me, staggering. I could go on and on, but you either get it or you don't.</p>

<p>I will not tolerate rudeness and personal attacks. There is plently of time for that AFTER you are lawyers (just kidding). This thread has degenerated to the point where there is nothing useful being dicusssed, therefore it is closed. Any further personal attacks in another thread will result in the loss of posting privileges.</p>

<p>CD</p>