Talk:Slacker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Slacker Example
I removed "(such as writing in Wikipedia instead of getting a "real" job)" from In Defense of Slackers because it seemed rather trollish. If you feel contrary please respond :) --Hoovernj 03:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm a latecomer, but I disagree. The phrase is an old joke, and one that has been discussed before (see below) and found funny. It's also genuinely a good example, as everyone here knows. --Kizor 14:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the unit conversion really necessary for li? The phrase doesn't have the same oomph that way. I mean, people never say "Give him 2.54 cm and he'll take 1.14 meters," right? :) --Uttaddmb 21:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
How else would anyone know it was a measure of length?68.71.35.93 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
question: how in particular is the tone of the article inappropriate? sure its a tad casual, but i think its pretty good. --ColdFeet 14:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
"...slackers may in fact be very active, though not always in activities that society deems to be most important, (like writing in a wikipedia instead of getting a real job that renders income)."
I just want to say that that's the greatest thing I've ever read at Wikipedia :)
- Yeah, that's definitely better than what's there now.
[edit] Stereotype
Should mention 1990sff stereotype (use in extensive revision). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Defense of Slackers
I don't think this section is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. You can talk about the history of the term, how it's used, who it applies to... whatever... but "defending" these people should be done elsewhere. (Also, "People who are good at doing what is important to them" is certainly not a definition of slacker... You ever heard someone call Mother Teresa a slacker?
No but i have heard her called the "Ghoul of Calcutta"
"Some people consider Beck's 1994 #1 hit "Loser" even if the author was not slacking at all when he wrote it." This sentence is incomplete. Consider what?
[edit] Richard Linklater quote
Does this require a [sic] after the withdrawl? There seem to be significantly more googleable versions with the withdrawl than with withdrawal. A citation would resolve this tiny and trivial uncertainty ;-)
- "Withdrawl in disgust is not the same as apathy." - Richard Linklater
or
- "Withdrawl [sic] in disgust is not the same as apathy." - Richard Linklater
Politepunk 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I found fewer instances of "withdrawl" than of "withdrawal" when I added "Linklater" to the search.
- As for the "sic":
- If it's a verbal quote (i.e. Linklater said it), then "withdrawal" should be spelled correctly, and no "sic" needed. ELSE...
- If it's a written quote, and it is indeed misspelled "withdrawl", then it should be marked "[sic]" to show that the spelling error is Linklater's, not Wikipedia's. SigPig 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Either way, how is it at all appropriate to start a Wikipedia article with an epigram? 68.80.111.166 08:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong Idea?
Slackers in Information Age is oxymoron.Wikipedia illustrates this. People who contribute to knowledge are not slackers.A website admin is not a slacker,a moderator on forums is a job.people can't see past their Industrial Age paradigms. To be a real Slacker you need to sever links from society,stop contributing anything productive and only consume.Sort of leisure class without work.A slacker who writes fanfics,or creates fansubs,draws/modifies pictures etc is productive force.This term is suggesting we need all to become wage slaves and work like Workaholic Japanese(yes,i'm aware they aren't all like that). the expression "cut some slack" and "slacking off" should be exlained. Looks like a loaded term. see Loser
[edit] How can sentences
such as "(such as writing in Wikipedia instead of getting a "real" job)." or "however their relative apathy precludes their involvement in any movement, as the work involved in being involved in anything at all is against the slacker way of life" be considered a part of serious Wikipedia article?
I don't believe any objective viewer can view this article as non-humoristic.
Cleanup tag added.
[edit] Biased As All Hell
Whomever edited this thing originally certainly didn't spare any chance to lavish praise. As currently written it is one-sided and barely above being a propaganda piece. I'll slice and dice it later when I have time and restore some neutrality to it, or at least the opposing viewpoint. 206.169.197.221 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- You aren't Hmoul are you? I had just started reading the article and thought it sounded biased as hell in the opposite direction. A quick look in the history reveals that the user I just mentioned basically wrecked the fucking article, removing massive chunks of relevant information and inserting in obviously POV statements such as "In general use there is no non-pejorative use of the term except in joking terms. A slacker is perceived to be a loser of no redeeming value." I don't want to end up babysitting the article or get involved in some ridiculous edit war, so I'm just gonna slap a POV tag on the article and hope that someone else can come along and clean it up. Until then I think I'll read the older version instead. - 81.179.69.230 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I just did it myself after all. - 81.179.69.230 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Six steps to being a slacker
http://enbris.blogsome.com/2006/03/13/6-stegsguide-till-ett-liv-som-slacker/
Swedish
Steg 1: Ge upp tankarna om att vilja bli rik. Steg 2: Gör dig fri från skulder. Steg 3: Köp inte massa skit du inte behöver. Steg 4: Dumpa pensionen. Steg 5: Arbeta deltid. Steg 6: Gör det du alltid drömt om.
Quick translation to english.
Step 1: Give up the thoughs of wanting to be rich/wealthy. Step 2: Make you free from mortages. Step 3: Don't buy lots of crap you don't need. Step 4: Dump the pension (insurance). Step 5: Work part-time. Step 6: Do the things you always dreamt about.
-thanks, man
