Post: #1

Quote:An ironic and unfortunate twist has developed in the life of Miriam Weeks, the Duke University student better known as porn star Belle Knox: Due to her illustrious porn career, which Weeks undertook to pay her tuition at Duke, she will no longer qualify for financial aid. It seems like her porn work can cover the full tuition, so she’ll stay at Duke — but in response, Weeks has criticized the college-crazy culture that tells “every kid to go to college, regardless of their future plans or ability to graduate” and the absurd tuition hikes that we have become accustomed to.

A true schadenfreude moment if there was one (source). And while Miriam Weeks continues to blame everyone but herself for her woes, her solution to solving the student loan crisis, shockingly, isn't more government intervention:

Quote:Government must stop the flow of money to schools in order to get tuition rates under control again. That means being honest about the fact that not every child should go to college. Only 59% of full-time, first-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution graduate in four years. That also means making students who can’t afford tuition out of pocket find funding in the private market, where lenders are too judicious to lend someone $150,000 to get a BA in underwater basketweaving.

Nooooo Miriam, don't you realize that being a poor oppressed womyn means that only Big Daddy Obama can save you?

Naturally, advocating for a libertarian/conservative solution to the student loan problem has pissed off her benefactors in the MSM:

Quote:Based on Weeks’ interpretation, would this not also eliminate financial aid for students? And, if that were to happen, would colleges drop their prices to make it more affordable (and would that be enough)? Weeks crafts a careful, smart argument, but her hasty conclusion shows how complex finding the solution is. Meanwhile, college tuition remains, as she writes, “sky-high.”

Watch: the same clowns who defended her as a Strong, Independent Woman™ fighting the EVUL PATRIARKY will toss her overboard now that she won't stick to the leftist script. Insert your own "Teabagger" jokes here.

Personally, I'm still not going to take her seriously. Weeks is an attention whore with a decidedly Catholic mentality: a desire to be crucified. Nobody nailed her to the cross for getting fucked on camera, so she's going to keep finding ways to piss off the leftist majority until she gets her crown of thorns.

Post: #2

^ This is correct. Right now she is actually being a strong, independent woman by saying what she believes.

The media will crucify her for this.

Feminism is simply a tool used by cultural marxists to destroy the fabric of society. People like her are nothing but foot soldiers and useful idiots in their war.

When they go off message, they are cast aside like the trash that they are.

Whenever guys go off on how she deep throats for money, I wonder how many men are deep throating the big cock of this worthless two-party political system.

Post: #3

Huh. I had to read the Salon article to remember who she even was.

Post: #4

That's not the story.

The story is that there are countless smart college students qualified to write such an article, yet Time chose someone who is a whore to do it.

That right there should send a message to hard-working college journalism students as to what kind of values the media has -- and how little it values the opinions of students who work diligently instead of having sex on camera.

Conclusion: the 22-year-old honors student who is well-versed on this topic but didn't take her clothes off gets to toil away for minimum money at a community paper starter job. But the whore who sucked James Deen's cock after it was in another woman's ass gets a national platform.

Hope lots of female journalism students are reading this, so you know what the media truly values you for.

Post: #5

Not everyone should go to college. A lot of people would be better suited by going to trade school.

Post: #6

(06-17-2014 09:03 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Not everyone should go to college. A lot of people would be better suited by going to trade school.

Actually, most people would be better off avoiding college.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-18...ds-no-debt

We've already passed the tipping point. College grades today are going to be worse off than their peers with just high school.

I actually met a young girl a few months ago at a dance who said she never went to college. I said to her, "Let me guess. Not going to college hasn't affected your life at all."

Her: "Yep. I have a job, a boyfriend, and I live on my own. Hasn't affected me at all!"

joke is on the college grads

Post: #7

You want to fix the student loan problem? Cut off the tap. No more federal student loans.

For 5 years, people won't be able to go to college in large numbers. Historically, higher education was for the intellectually elite anyway. Out of my high school class of 575, almost every single person with a GPA of 3.3 or higher (with grade inflation, mind you) managed to go to college. How many of us actually deserved to go? Probably about 150.

Post: #8

The blonde old lady that is/was her media handler must be on vacation.

Post: #9

She did say she was libertarian from the start, so this shouldn't surprise leftists, though it does amuse me.

Her twitter feed is great because it's 10 tweets of her vag followed by a "read my article on feminism!!" tweet.

The MSM likes what she stands for but not what she is. How many of the libs celebrating her have actually jacked it to her porn? Or paid for it?

Regardless of what happens, this will be me:

Post: #10

(06-17-2014 09:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, most people would be better off avoiding college.

The cost of college has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. In some states it has doubled and even tripled since I graduated. Think about how absurd this is for a moment and think about the opportunity cost.

Let's say a year of college is around $20k at a state school 5 year ago. It's probably even more than that when you factor in lost wages, room and board, etc..

That 4 year degree would cost 80k at a state school. A person could have invested that in a stable broad stock index fund like Vanguard total stock (VTSX) 5 years ago and it would be worth over $160k today. With that 160k they would have a significant bank roll to work with AND would have had the benefit of working that entire 4 years in building an actual resume.

Post: #11

(06-17-2014 09:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, most people would be better off avoiding college.

The cost of college has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. In some states it has doubled and even tripled since I graduated. Think about how absurd this is for a moment and think about the opportunity cost.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/08/colleges...the_media/

According to this Salon article, the increase is over 1,200% over 30 years. I think a year at Stanford runs $65K/yr for tuition alone. That's like buying a really nice car every year for 4 years.

Also, while it's common for an employer requiring a college degree for employment, employers commonly have to invest a great deal in getting college grads ready for the workforce, because colleges don't really teach job skills. I was reading something today that claimed that teacher training programs are so lacking in actual classroom skills that school districts are having to budget training money to get new graduates up to speed.

Fact is with stuff like Coursera, Universities are undercutting themselves. If you can get the classwork online for nothing, why get a degree? Get an entry level job, take the classwork, and advance through the old fashioned way. It's early to call that, but I think that we'll see the old apprenticeship system come back in some form.

Post: #12

(06-17-2014 09:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, most people would be better off avoiding college.

The cost of college has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. In some states it has doubled and even tripled since I graduated. Think about how absurd this is for a moment and think about the opportunity cost.

Let's say a year of college is around $20k at a state school 5 year ago. It's probably even more than that when you factor in lost wages, room and board, etc..

That 4 year degree would cost 80k at a state school. A person could have invested that in a stable broad stock index fund like Vanguard total stock (VTSX) 5 years ago and it would be worth over $160k today. With that 160k they would have a significant bank roll to work with AND would have had the benefit of working that entire 4 years in building an actual resume.

indeed, here in TN they are proposing at 6% increase in tuition this year. This site has a tuition history on it http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/tenn...6EEw7HlYW0

If you are looking at the chart, which goes to 2010 2014/15 tuition is going to be $8270/year. 3 times what it was in 2000. 6 times what it was in 1990.

Does anyone think the corresponding salary for a degree based career is 6 times what it was in 1990?

edit: they even have the list of graduates by degree. The top 3 number of graduates are 1. communication 2. Journalism and 3. Kinesiology all wastes of 80 grand.

Post: #13

(06-17-2014 08:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  That's not the story.

The story is that there are countless smart college students qualified to write such an article, yet Time chose someone who is a whore to do it.

That'd be worth expanding into an essay, Days.

Post: #14

(06-17-2014 10:16 PM)RockHard Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 09:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, most people would be better off avoiding college.

The cost of college has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. In some states it has doubled and even tripled since I graduated. Think about how absurd this is for a moment and think about the opportunity cost.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/08/colleges...the_media/

According to this Salon article, the increase is over 1,200% over 30 years. I think a year at Stanford runs $65K/yr for tuition alone. That's like buying a really nice car every year for 4 years.

Also, while it's common for an employer requiring a college degree for employment, employers commonly have to invest a great deal in getting college grads ready for the workforce, because colleges don't really teach job skills. I was reading something today that claimed that teacher training programs are so lacking in actual classroom skills that school districts are having to budget training money to get new graduates up to speed.

Fact is with stuff like Coursera, Universities are undercutting themselves. If you can get the classwork online for nothing, why get a degree? Get an entry level job, take the classwork, and advance through the old fashioned way. It's early to call that, but I think that we'll see the old apprenticeship system come back in some form.

"Fact is with stuff like Coursera, Universities are undercutting themselves. If you can get the classwork online for nothing, why get a degree?"

Because the degree is about prestige and social climbing, not actually about education.

This was always true, but has become more true now that college has gone majority female, because so much of women's behavior is based around status whoring. Men are what they do, for the most part, while women are what they display.

A college degree, in some ways, has replaced a well-to-do husband as the ultimate status object for women.

This shows how the upper classes have exploited women in the name of feminism. Instead of marrying money as a rite of passage, they now get to pay through the nose for it. This is "progress."

Post: #15

(06-17-2014 08:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  That's not the story.

The story is that there are countless smart college students qualified to write such an article, yet Time chose someone who is a whore to do it.

That right there should send a message to hard-working college journalism students as to what kind of values the media has -- and how little it values the opinions of students who work diligently instead of having sex on camera.

Conclusion: the 22-year-old honors student who is well-versed on this topic but didn't take her clothes off gets to toil away for minimum money at a community paper starter job.But the whore who sucked James Deen's cock after it was in another woman's ass gets a national platform.

Hope lots of female journalism students are reading this, so you know what the media truly values you for.

That is quite the outlandish statement you are making about a fine young lady. You are going to need to provide a source, or I'm calling bullshit.

Post: #16

(06-17-2014 10:59 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  That's not the story.

The story is that there are countless smart college students qualified to write such an article, yet Time chose someone who is a whore to do it.

That right there should send a message to hard-working college journalism students as to what kind of values the media has -- and how little it values the opinions of students who work diligently instead of having sex on camera.

Conclusion: the 22-year-old honors student who is well-versed on this topic but didn't take her clothes off gets to toil away for minimum money at a community paper starter job.But the whore who sucked James Deen's cock after it was in another woman's ass gets a national platform.

Hope lots of female journalism students are reading this, so you know what the media truly values you for.

That is quite the outlandish statement you are making about a fine young lady. You are going to need to provide a source, or I'm calling bullshit.

Unless your joking. Don't white knight the whore.

Here is the link:

*NSFW*
http://www.data18.com/content/update_129304.html
*NSFW*

Post: #17

(06-17-2014 11:34 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 10:59 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  That's not the story.

The story is that there are countless smart college students qualified to write such an article, yet Time chose someone who is a whore to do it.

That right there should send a message to hard-working college journalism students as to what kind of values the media has -- and how little it values the opinions of students who work diligently instead of having sex on camera.

Conclusion: the 22-year-old honors student who is well-versed on this topic but didn't take her clothes off gets to toil away for minimum money at a community paper starter job.But the whore who sucked James Deen's cock after it was in another woman's ass gets a national platform.

Hope lots of female journalism students are reading this, so you know what the media truly values you for.

That is quite the outlandish statement you are making about a fine young lady. You are going to need to provide a source, or I'm calling bullshit.

Unless your joking. Don't white knight the whore.

Here is the link:

*NSFW*
http://www.data18.com/content/update_129304.html
*NSFW*

I'm not supporting her in any way, shape, or form. I'm going to torrent this.

Post: #18

The only reason she approves of people paying their own way is because she know she can suck her way in.

Narcissist at it's best.

Post: #19

(06-17-2014 11:43 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 11:34 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 10:59 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  That's not the story.

The story is that there are countless smart college students qualified to write such an article, yet Time chose someone who is a whore to do it.

That right there should send a message to hard-working college journalism students as to what kind of values the media has -- and how little it values the opinions of students who work diligently instead of having sex on camera.

Conclusion: the 22-year-old honors student who is well-versed on this topic but didn't take her clothes off gets to toil away for minimum money at a community paper starter job.But the whore who sucked James Deen's cock after it was in another woman's ass gets a national platform.

Hope lots of female journalism students are reading this, so you know what the media truly values you for.

That is quite the outlandish statement you are making about a fine young lady. You are going to need to provide a source, or I'm calling bullshit.

Unless your joking. Don't white knight the whore.

Here is the link:

*NSFW*
http://www.data18.com/content/update_129304.html
*NSFW*

I'm not supporting her in any way, shape, or form. I'm going to torrent this.

You were though. Re-read the tone of your previous post. You were butt hurt somebody went at your snowflake.

Post: #20

Nah dude... he just wanted the porn link so he could beat off to it

Post: #21

(06-17-2014 11:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nah dude... he just wanted the porn link so he could beat off to it

Beat me to it. (pun?)

If colleges lose their funding a whole bastion of liberal bullshit would go up in flames. Lord, may it be so.

May they become so bloated and fat they die, like America.

Post: #22

The implication of the Time article here is that we're supposed to care about the opinion of some student just because she's a porn performer.

The editors are just trying to titillate us, to con us into caring about this girl's opinions. She hasn't earned the right to be given a platform. But the media just plays right along, giving a platform for this dipshit to editorialize about the financial injustices of modern America.

Everyone already knows students are getting screwed; we don't need Miriam Weeks to remind us of that. Yet the legion of desperate simps out there who hang on her every word are galvanized by all this.

And on top of it all, she now tries to play the victim. Oh, woe is me, I lost my financial aid. Yeah, well, welcome to the jungle. Actions have consequences.

Read more deeply, this is step one in Duke's little scheme to run her off campus. She's become an embarrassment of sorts, and they're going to put the screws to her. They're going to make life so miserable for her that she'll likely just quit.

Then she can finally get what she always wanted: the role of the fallen angel/martyr. She'll make the lecture circuit for a few years at 3rd tier schools, and maybe even show up on The View to serenade Whoopi Goldberg on what it was like to feel the "liberating" thrusts of erect phalluses.

And after that, once she's gone to seed and is too weepy to arouse desire, she'll go through a second round of cosmetic surgery to keep her wrinkles down, and will be doing DP scenes with other dick-licking has-beens.

Post: #23

(06-17-2014 08:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  That's not the story.

The story is that there are countless smart college students qualified to write such an article, yet Time chose someone who is a whore to do it.

It's clicks bro. Anyone else writes it and it's just another article writes it. A person with a name writes it and people read it.

Here we are...We all took the red pill and yet we're plugged into the Matrix talking about some bullshit pop culture porn slut.

There is no escape from the Matrix.

Post: #24

It's a mutual exchange of benefits.

Time, an aging institution struggling to maintain relevance in a new era gets clickbait.

Knox, realizing that making a porn isn't a pathway to continued attention or reward, wants to add a new angle to her fame.

Post: #25

"It's clicks bro. Anyone else writes it and it's just another article writes it. A person with a name writes it and people read it.

Here we are...We all took the red pill and yet we're plugged into the Matrix talking about some bullshit pop culture porn slut."

^Exactly.

The very fact there is a thread on this accomplishes what TIME wanted: buzz.