Talk:Slacker

Don't reinvent the wheel

The piece about "Don't reinvent the wheel" is irrelevant. That is not a term that identifies the slacker mentality. The concept of reinventing the wheel is just about avoiding waste. As the term relates to programming concepts, it is an absolute necessity, because an employer is not likely to want to pay high programmer salaries for work that has already been accomplished. Therefore, code re-use is simply being a responsible employee, not a slacker. In addition, such re-use reduces the possibility of additional programming errors and inaccuracies. So I don't think this should be considered exemplary of the slacker mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.4.180 (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racist myth

I am kind of bothered by the "Hard work for its own sake is a fairly modern phenomenon, becoming culturally acceptable during the Protestant Reformation. A positive view on work was not a cultural norm for Hebrew, Classical antiquity, or medieval cultures.", passage. This idea, the so-called "protestant work ethic", first gained popularity in the 19th century to give a semi-rational justification for anglo-saxon racism and the manifest destiny doctrine. Protestants certainly didn't work anywhere near as hard as the African-american slaves they owned before abolition, and Asian had hard work ethics for centuries before any European came up with the idea. I think those two sentences should be erased.

Obviously all sorts of people throughout history have worked hard. but it's because they had to, or wanted to be rich etc, not "for its own sake". LDHan 14:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How else would anyone know it was a measure of length?68.71.35.93 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"...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.

Stereotype

Should mention 1990sff stereotype (use in extensive revision). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, I just did it myself after all. - 81.179.69.230 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Hmoul is like I was 10 to 15 years ago: are you a student of Neo-Tech? I have gradually mostly "back-slidden" from the philosophy/politics of it's creators, and have came to realize that I really don't like the prospects of being a total workaholic, forever. Now, I can't hardly stand those secular "South Park Republican"/Libertarian amoral "tech geek" types (well, their only morals seem to be an absolute, total abhorance of the initiation of government force, but they're also keen on promoting/praising competitive market-driven workaholism) By the way, I'm not too big on politically-correct, anti-free speech liberals or sex-hating (sex-negative) radical feminists either. I'm not really a slacker, but I'm sick and tired of people bashing them (and NOT bashing the hypocritical, force-initiating conservatives). Do they really think it is rational to prefer enslavement by "busy" capitalists/theocrats than to merely tolerate (or be slightly regulated and taxed by) "slacker" liberal arts types? How is being taxed and regulated, even ever-so-slightly (compared to just about every other country in the world) by the government such a unfathomable evil, while allowing moralistic conservatives to ban consentual adult behavior (and abuse their children) the "lesser" of the two evils? Shanoman 18:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Here's another step, edit wikipedia

Sex?

Should there be something in the article outlining the sexual practices of slackers? (ie, masturbation, sex without ejaculation to prevent offspring thus preventing responsibility, pornography addiction/aversion, raping road cones, and the like?

Reference collecting

In the interest of re-writing the bulk of this with solid references, I'm going to start a list of potential references here. scot 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://condor.depaul.edu/~dweinste/rock/ironicyth.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/13/sunday/main1890235.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/books/chapters/0604-1st-lutz.html?ex=1170997200&en=ea9a2b5851244b40&ei=5070 (chapter 1 of Tom Lutz's book, Doing Nothing, registration required)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0865476500/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7506948-4494437#reader-link (Amazon.com's Look Inside for Lutz's book)

Article Blows

This article reads like something from everything2.com. It's also totally unsourced. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.209.14 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a dictionary article. Fleebo (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson

I don't think he can be described as a slacker. He's supposedly 10 and still at school. I think one becomes a slacker upon leaving school with no ambitions to do anything except be a pot-head. Although he is on good terms with Otto, a definite slacker. SteveRamone 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of “slacking”

People who suffer from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are not “slackers.” Bwrs (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this undocumented and offensive material. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this citation

I removed the citation to: Dudley B. Dawson, "The seven habits of highly effective slackers" at examiner.com because it was not associated with any text that actually used it and also because the entire article is ironic and therefore really not suitable as a citation/source. It argues that people who work quietly without promoting their own achievements are the true workhorses of society. It uses the term "slacker" as a gimmick. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "goofing off" into this article

Should the article goofing off be merged into this article, since they are about the same topic? Jarble (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the SubGenius

How can an article on slackers not contain a single reference to the Church of the SubGenius? 151.200.242.189 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]