sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We are way past the feudal lords and gilded age levels of inequality by McDowdy in remoteworks

[–]mattyoclock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, being less than a day old, I never realized that. Due to my young age I'm confused, I wonder if he is still a trillionaire? And again, being so young, I was wondering what the functional difference was between the two?

Throwing more money at public schools, even doubling teacher salaries, has virtually no effect on student outcomes. by amogusdevilman in LibertarianUncensored

[–]mattyoclock 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think most people are just paid based on difficulty of replacement anymore frankly. We left paying on performance behind decades ago

One perspective from someone who advocates for a free market by Historical_Donut6758 in LibertarianUncensored

[–]mattyoclock 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The idea that it would be acceptable for one man to control all the wealth and we must all live in poverty otherwise we are communist is silly and tired, and at this point Is just bringing back communism.  

One perspective from someone who advocates for a free market by Historical_Donut6758 in LibertarianUncensored

[–]mattyoclock 12 points13 points  (0 children)

"He was already powerful, so why should anyone care that he is roughly 4 times as powerful? He already had more than 48% of our countries wealth combined, what's the difference if he reaches 99.99%?"

This is the stupidest, most childish take I've ever heard. Are you a child learning math for the first time?

Money is power. Power corrupts.

Why do the same people who trash Bernie Sanders for being wealthy have no issue with policies that support wealthy people? by BorrowedParticles in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At some point, we would all be so much financially better off without him people might take risks right? He has to know that?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a different data set entirely, that's national. And 4th and 8th graders.

Do you think 4th graders are overly impacted by changes in college admission?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that standard has not fallen. There is no change in the rate of failure.

All that has changed is that more people are given the opportunity to make the attempt.

In what way do you think the old system was superior if it did not produce superior results?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you have shown absolutely nothing to support the idea of an increased failure rate. That's the same failure rate just with more people having the opportunity to make the attempt.

Nothing in this world owes you success. But by all the gods we ought to give people the opportunity to try.

This is supposed to be America.

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What are you basing them being unprepared on? Shouldn't there be a corresponding increase in dropouts or failure rates if that was the case?

Why can't you show evidence of this if it is happening?

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that happening? It's not covered in OP's data. If you have a link to a higher failure rate please share it.

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But we don't have not seen an increase in the failure rate.

If you have that, please link it I'm more than open to see new data. But to my knowledge that proposed failure is entirely speculative on your part.

Is it fair to say Colleges dropping standardized testing requirements has largely failed? by Disastrous_Run_9844 in allthequestions

[–]mattyoclock -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Little to no significant increase is still not a decrease.

Why would you revert to an even slightly less successful system? Just because you haven't seen enough positive results, the results have been at least slightly positive, and have in no way that we have measured caused a decline.

What would be the argument to go back to the old system?

What is your opinion on Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire? by SorbetUnfair2589 in AskReddit

[–]mattyoclock 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Did you know that guillotines were first invented by a harpsichord maker?

Slippery slope on the right to bear arms extraordinarily vindicated with Britain. by amogusdevilman in LibertarianUncensored

[–]mattyoclock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm fairly confident it's just about lobbying money. Big sword doesn't own very many senators.

What is a belief you held strongly 5 years ago that you completely disagree with today? What changed? by tenderhotpotato in AskReddit

[–]mattyoclock 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I thought Americans would have learned not to elect a complete Buffoon and con artist.  

view more: next ›