Obama's election should bring an end to Affirmative Action - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 12-02-2008, 12:41 PM

except frosstbyte, and I think you're making some really interesting points so far, what if the reality is that "education is not the way to survive and get respect from your peers"? what if that's actually true and realistic? then the issue is not at all the hip-hop culture, regardless of who is or is not paying attention to it, but the reality of the situation on the ground.

and this can be taken in the context of structural racism...or it can be taken in the rubber meets the road sense of how effectively a textbook protects a student from another's physical violence.

leaving aside the survival proposition, do you honestly see evidence that our culture rewards education with respect?

Cynthetiq · 12-02-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

except frosstbyte, and I think you're making some really interesting points so far, what if the reality is that "education is not the way to survive and get respect from your peers"? what if that's actually true and realistic? then the issue is not at all the hip-hop culture, regardless of who is or is not paying attention to it, but the reality of the situation on the ground.

and this can be taken in the context of structural racism...or it can be taken in the rubber meets the road sense of how effectively a textbook protects a student from another's physical violence.

but isn't that about valuing the idea of education to come from the community? or is it that we have to force it upon them to protect them from themselves?

roachboy · 12-02-2008, 12:56 PM

first off, can we exclude hip hop from this? nothing good or interesting is going to come of it being here, and i doubt seriously that timalkin knows anything to speak of about the form, otherwise it would have been brought up in the way it was.

secondly, if the problem is institutional or structural racism, then the response from timalkin has to address that point. otherwise, ain't nothing happening.

i'm fading in here because this is the place the last thread ground to a halt over. if there's to be anything different here---which i doubt will happen---then this is the way to go. demonstrate that structural or institutional racism has been eliminated. it is self-evident that this cannot be done without some sort of shuck and jive, which will no doubt turn on an attempt to "misunderstand" what's being discussed.

Rekna · 12-02-2008, 12:56 PM

This just in:

A Mexican came into our country legally. All immigration problems are fixed!
A poor person won the lottery. Poverty is gone!
A starving child was fed. Hunger is a thing of the past!
...

Derwood · 12-02-2008, 01:57 PM

it's easy to blame Hip Hop culture if one can just ignore the fact that the same problems existed in the black community pre-1980

dc_dux · 12-02-2008, 02:33 PM

In the spirit of the OP, re: presidents and affirmative action

Quote:

George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he doesn't care for the way they do it at the University of Michigan. The Administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan system unconstitutional because of the scoring method it uses for rating applicants.

"At the undergraduate level," said Bush, "African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic or Native American."

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience--prosperous family, fancy prep school--which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally......

CNN.com - How affirmative action helped George W. - Jan. 20, 2003

Frosstbyte · 12-02-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

except frosstbyte, and I think you're making some really interesting points so far, what if the reality is that "education is not the way to survive and get respect from your peers"? what if that's actually true and realistic? then the issue is not at all the hip-hop culture, regardless of who is or is not paying attention to it, but the reality of the situation on the ground.

and this can be taken in the context of structural racism...or it can be taken in the rubber meets the road sense of how effectively a textbook protects a student from another's physical violence.

leaving aside the survival proposition, do you honestly see evidence that our culture rewards education with respect?

Well, I suppose there might be some truth to what you say, but I guess my point is our focus should be on figuring out why that is the case and then how to make that not be the case. I mean, obviously, right now, if your family is poor and living in a ghetto, it's more straightforward to drop out of school, join a gang and bring home drug money than it is to gamble on maybe getting into school to rack up loans to maybe get a good job when you graduate. The question is why do some groups of people succeed in that latter gamble whereas other groups languish in the former? I think roach is probably right that we've zero'd in on what is perhaps a useless aspect of the problem, but my feelings, again, are that we need to focus on the problem and solving the problem of CYCLICAL poverty and poor education instead of tossing affirmative action at it.

The article you quoted, dc, is painfully reaching for a meaningless conclusion. Sure, people get things all the time because of who they are and not what they did, and the legacy system at elite schools, particularly during the era when Bush was applying, was corrupt and stupid. And, shockingly, they got rid of it. But to describe it as affirmative action because it's politically convenient doesn't do anything to help the argument that affirmative action is a bad thing. In fact, it actually makes affirmative action look WORSE, because (if you want to call it that) it got someone like George W. Bush into Yale.

timalkin · 12-02-2008, 02:50 PM

The dirty white bastards that designed and are perpetuating "institutional" or "structural" racism need to be fired. They are obviously not doing their jobs if so many of "them" are getting through and making successful lives for themselves. One was even elected President! Who was asleep at the wheel?

The ultimate question that I'd like to have answered is this:

When can we safely eliminate affirmative action?

It looks like too many people are overlooking personal responsibility in favor of a helping hand from the government.

roachboy · 12-02-2008, 03:08 PM

nice timalkin...dodge the question.
i expected nothing more or less.

the problem, really, is that your question is meaningless. it is meaningless because you refuse to take actual contexts into account. it is pretty obvious why this follows--your question would not exist as it does were you to take context into account. there was a period not so long ago which was so organized that conservative superficiality had to be taken seriously. that period is over, and now this superficiality sinks back into being what it was before it enjoyed a brief and catastrophic period of being ascendant.

so since there's no reason to take such nonsense seriously any more, not even as a positioning move in a debate, the problem remains--your ability to defend your position hinges on your ability to control which information is framed in or out. the thread has surpassed those limits, and you cannot call it back.

so you either answer the question or the game ends.

smooth · 12-02-2008, 04:09 PM

frost, is your position that most black kids join gangs, and that most gangs deal drugs, and that most members of black communities are unsuccessful?
because those positions are held directly opposite to the data.

most black kids do not join gangs, of the ones who do, most join traditional street gangs. traditional street gangs do not deal drugs.
most members of black communities grow up and lead crime-free lives in whatever jobs they can secure...whether that's "success" to you is another matter altogether.

my experience is that discussions regarding affirmative action are often in relation to higher education and career promotions.
but only a sliver of people in any given work context are promoted and a fraction of our population attends higher education.

I'm not sure why the discussion fell to trying to figure out why urban black youth are not particularly concerned about promotions in a professional career or getting into Harvard or UCLA. The only people who will really care about your newly minted JD are other people with JD's. The only people who will care about my PhD will be another university or a legal policy think tank. Neither of our degrees is going to give us so much as a soda, much less respect from pretty much any regular person walking down the street. I hesitate to say whether it'll get you much in whatever firm you go work for, too!

Seriously, you've got a sharper mind than asking why kids don't think going to school is worth a shit.
How many of your cohort actually finished? I'd be surprised if it was much more than 50%. So even taking the weirdos who thought to themselves at age 13 "I'm going to be a lawyer" (and if you didn't realize it by now, we were fucking weird and not the typical 13 year old), and even those who actually made it to law school, even those self-selected few didn't make it all the way. It was a Big Deal when you passed your exams. So big of a deal that you posted it on an anonymous internet forum. It was a big deal because it was a difficult and rare accomplishment. Did you accomplish that feat all by your lonesome?

What do people think affirmative action does? Does it fund personal tutors for kids in the ghetto? Who does their math homework...an IRS agent?
Does someone personally hold their dick when they pee?

By the time someone is applying to Stanford, haven't they already proved their own ambition enough?
All AA seems to do is make clear, when you get to a certain level we're going to make sure not to lose you because of a trait you didn't have any say in.
Now I've got a thread here that is arguing that white males are walking around society believing that no matter what they do, no matter their personal achievements, they will be limited in their success on the basis of being white.

Why, if personal responsibility is so important as being claimed in these threads, do these people not conclude that they failed to get what they were after because they weren't good enough? Why are a group of white males defending affirmative action against a group of non-white males in these threads?

It seems like the disappointment is that, given a few slots made available to minorities through various programs, there aren't enough to go around.
Out of a handful of people vying for acceptance, one or two make it in. Meanwhile, the back door is open for anyone who has the money or connections.
Somehow this is taken as evidence that there is no problem at the structural level...

Cynthetiq · 12-02-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

By the time someone is applying to Stanford, haven't they already proved their own ambition enough?
All AA seems to do is make clear, when you get to a certain level we're going to make sure not to lose you because of a trait you didn't have any say in.
Now I've got a thread here that is arguing that white males are walking around society believing that no matter what they do, no matter their personal achievements, they will be limited in their success on the basis of being white.

Why, if personal responsibility is so important as being claimed in these threads, do these people not conclude that they failed to get what they were after because they weren't good enough? Why are a group of white males defending affirmative action against a group of non-white males in these threads?

It seems like the disappointment is that, given a few slots made available to minorities through various programs, there aren't enough to go around.
Out of a handful of people vying for acceptance, one or two make it in. Meanwhile, the back door is open for anyone who has the money or connections.

I'd not say that open for anyone with money/power/connections since again, the seating at the table is limited.

I don't know why you are defending it. I'm just saying that I don't like it. I see it's place and understand why it exists, but I find that the role causes more strife than it does help from my own experiences.

I have concluded that when I knew it was the factor why I didn't get the job/promotion it was my fault. When I know that there are diversity programs in play, I cry foul.

What I'm troubled by is the fact that as a hiring manager, I'm trying to higher the best of the best, and have been told and been to training programs for hiring more diverse (read: not white) candidates. So even if I was to have found a wonderful Russian or Slavic (read: ethnic) candidate, even if that person was more qualified, I could not hire such an individual as they wanted more diversity within the ranks.

I learned how to skirt around these rules, I found the best diverse candidates in house and developed them to the skills that I wanted so that I could hire within and hire diverse. It was a win/win for me for many reasons. But barring the ability to have candidates to groom and pick from, if they didn't exist, I wasn't allowed to pick the best of the best. I had to pick minorities because that was the requirement albeit unspoken.

timalkin · 12-03-2008, 05:20 PM

sprocket · 12-04-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

It has already been said, but I'll reiterate: one != all.

This will be a more valid discussion when the proportion of black and female Congresspersons and CEOs matches that of the general population.

And when the amount of white professional basketball players matches that of the general population, no doubt.

Why does this matter?

In a world where racism is ended, should we expect to have to have every governing legislative body sliced up nicely with racial demographics that match the general population? No, of course not. There's really no value in that whole idea, and I would go much farther to say its inherently racist itself. It assumes all those of a minority group are homogeneous, and their needs can only be met by one of their own persuasion.

In a world with no/little racism, those positions could be filled with people of any race and no one would notice the difference.

SecretMethod70 · 12-04-2008, 03:00 PM

Forget racism - in a world where everyone is given the same opportunities, the demographics of bodies such as legislatures will naturally end up close to the demographics of the population as a whole. There's a huge difference between government bodies not matching the population demographics and a basketball team not doing so. Unless you're about to argue that black people's brains work differently than white people...but I don't think you want to go down that road.

dc_dux · 12-04-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

And when the amount of white professional basketball players matches that of the general population, no doubt.

Why does this matter?

In a world where racism is ended, should we expect to have to have every governing legislative body sliced up nicely with racial demographics that match the general population? No, of course not. There's really no value in that whole idea, and I would go much farther to say its inherently racist itself. It assumes all those of a minority group are homogeneous, and their needs can only be met by one of their own persuasion.

In a world with no/little racism, those positions could be filled with people of any race and no one would notice the difference.

IMO, you are confusing or blurring the line between affirmative action and quotas.

timalkin · 12-04-2008, 03:31 PM

filtherton · 12-04-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

I don't believe this is true. Why would an equal playing field have any effect on the racial makeup of the government? There would be no effect, unless government officials were elected on the basis of their race, which is a racist action.

Your statement would be true if all whites voted for whites, all blacks for blacks, all hispanics for hispanics, etc. Isn't that what we're not supposed to encourage?

It follows directly from the Central Limit Theorem, blah blah blaghetty blah...

What he's saying is that if you assume that all races are equal, then that would also mean that all races are equally suited to public office, and would have the same liklihood of attaining public office. All other things being equal, one would expect that the distribution of different races amongst elected officials would track the distributions of different races amongst the general populace.

pig · 12-04-2008, 03:48 PM

If all things were "equal," I would tend to think that mathematically, over a "statistically significant" period of time, the demographics of elected bodies (especially something like state legislatures, governorships, and the federal legislative bodies) would tend towards the population demographics.

edit: Damn you, you filthy bastard!!! Foiled...once again!!!

dc_dux · 12-04-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

It follows directly from the Central Limit Theorem, blah blah blaghetty blah...

What he's saying is that if you assume that all races are equal, then that would also mean that all races are equally suited to public office, and would have the same liklihood of attaining public office. All other things being equal, one would expect that the distribution of different races amongst elected officials would track the distributions of different races amongst the general populace.

I would put it a bit differently.

Candidates for high elective office (Governor or US Senator) should be qualified.

One reasonable way to measure "qualified" is having served in a lower elective office.....mayor/city council, state legislature.....

The pool of qualified blacks for these higher elective office by having served in these lower elected positions has increased significantly in the last 40+ years (since passage of the Voting Rights Act).

In an ideal world, that would translate upward over time and it hasnt .... we only have two black governors and zero black senators.

filtherton · 12-04-2008, 03:53 PM

pig, you can follow me directly from my central limit theorem any day.

Frosstbyte · 12-04-2008, 04:01 PM

I'm glad I checked my math before I posted because I was definitely about to point foot A into mouth B.

Moving right along!

pig · 12-04-2008, 04:31 PM

bro, I'd get all around your distribution and pull up to your asymptote any day :P

timalkin · 12-04-2008, 04:32 PM

pig · 12-04-2008, 04:51 PM

all of those factors would apply to anybody, regardless of race. so we start over again.

i also find it somewhat amusing to see you say that "that theory would never hold up in the real world." it seems that your theory - that a single semi-black man being elected office should significantly alter hiring policies and directives...well, might not hold up in the real world. that black people, or other ethnic minorities, fail because they all emulate drug-lord and nwa rap videos...might not hold up in the real world. whatever - we simply disagree on this point. i'm perfectly open to discussions of race relations in the united states, or in general - but the pretense that a single event should dramatically alter our perception of things is something i find difficult to believe...other than to say "it is possible." i'll throw out another statistical term - outlier.

12-02-2008, 12:41 PM	#81 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	except frosstbyte, and I think you're making some really interesting points so far, what if the reality is that "education is not the way to survive and get respect from your peers"? what if that's actually true and realistic? then the issue is not at all the hip-hop culture, regardless of who is or is not paying attention to it, but the reality of the situation on the ground. and this can be taken in the context of structural racism...or it can be taken in the rubber meets the road sense of how effectively a textbook protects a student from another's physical violence. leaving aside the survival proposition, do you honestly see evidence that our culture rewards education with respect? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 12-02-2008 at 12:45 PM..

12-02-2008, 12:56 PM	#83 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	first off, can we exclude hip hop from this? nothing good or interesting is going to come of it being here, and i doubt seriously that timalkin knows anything to speak of about the form, otherwise it would have been brought up in the way it was. secondly, if the problem is institutional or structural racism, then the response from timalkin has to address that point. otherwise, ain't nothing happening. i'm fading in here because this is the place the last thread ground to a halt over. if there's to be anything different here---which i doubt will happen---then this is the way to go. demonstrate that structural or institutional racism has been eliminated. it is self-evident that this cannot be done without some sort of shuck and jive, which will no doubt turn on an attempt to "misunderstand" what's being discussed. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-02-2008, 02:50 PM	#88 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	The dirty white bastards that designed and are perpetuating "institutional" or "structural" racism need to be fired. They are obviously not doing their jobs if so many of "them" are getting through and making successful lives for themselves. One was even elected President! Who was asleep at the wheel? The ultimate question that I'd like to have answered is this: When can we safely eliminate affirmative action? It looks like too many people are overlooking personal responsibility in favor of a helping hand from the government. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix

12-02-2008, 03:08 PM	#89 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice timalkin...dodge the question. i expected nothing more or less. the problem, really, is that your question is meaningless. it is meaningless because you refuse to take actual contexts into account. it is pretty obvious why this follows--your question would not exist as it does were you to take context into account. there was a period not so long ago which was so organized that conservative superficiality had to be taken seriously. that period is over, and now this superficiality sinks back into being what it was before it enjoyed a brief and catastrophic period of being ascendant. so since there's no reason to take such nonsense seriously any more, not even as a positioning move in a debate, the problem remains--your ability to defend your position hinges on your ability to control which information is framed in or out. the thread has surpassed those limits, and you cannot call it back. so you either answer the question or the game ends. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-02-2008 at 03:13 PM..

12-02-2008, 04:09 PM	#90 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	frost, is your position that most black kids join gangs, and that most gangs deal drugs, and that most members of black communities are unsuccessful? because those positions are held directly opposite to the data. most black kids do not join gangs, of the ones who do, most join traditional street gangs. traditional street gangs do not deal drugs. most members of black communities grow up and lead crime-free lives in whatever jobs they can secure...whether that's "success" to you is another matter altogether. my experience is that discussions regarding affirmative action are often in relation to higher education and career promotions. but only a sliver of people in any given work context are promoted and a fraction of our population attends higher education. I'm not sure why the discussion fell to trying to figure out why urban black youth are not particularly concerned about promotions in a professional career or getting into Harvard or UCLA. The only people who will really care about your newly minted JD are other people with JD's. The only people who will care about my PhD will be another university or a legal policy think tank. Neither of our degrees is going to give us so much as a soda, much less respect from pretty much any regular person walking down the street. I hesitate to say whether it'll get you much in whatever firm you go work for, too! Seriously, you've got a sharper mind than asking why kids don't think going to school is worth a shit. How many of your cohort actually finished? I'd be surprised if it was much more than 50%. So even taking the weirdos who thought to themselves at age 13 "I'm going to be a lawyer" (and if you didn't realize it by now, we were fucking weird and not the typical 13 year old), and even those who actually made it to law school, even those self-selected few didn't make it all the way. It was a Big Deal when you passed your exams. So big of a deal that you posted it on an anonymous internet forum. It was a big deal because it was a difficult and rare accomplishment. Did you accomplish that feat all by your lonesome? What do people think affirmative action does? Does it fund personal tutors for kids in the ghetto? Who does their math homework...an IRS agent? Does someone personally hold their dick when they pee? By the time someone is applying to Stanford, haven't they already proved their own ambition enough? All AA seems to do is make clear, when you get to a certain level we're going to make sure not to lose you because of a trait you didn't have any say in. Now I've got a thread here that is arguing that white males are walking around society believing that no matter what they do, no matter their personal achievements, they will be limited in their success on the basis of being white. Why, if personal responsibility is so important as being claimed in these threads, do these people not conclude that they failed to get what they were after because they weren't good enough? Why are a group of white males defending affirmative action against a group of non-white males in these threads? It seems like the disappointment is that, given a few slots made available to minorities through various programs, there aren't enough to go around. Out of a handful of people vying for acceptance, one or two make it in. Meanwhile, the back door is open for anyone who has the money or connections. Somehow this is taken as evidence that there is no problem at the structural level... __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 12-02-2008 at 04:13 PM..

12-02-2008, 12:56 PM	#84 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	This just in: A Mexican came into our country legally. All immigration problems are fixed! A poor person won the lottery. Poverty is gone! A starving child was fed. Hunger is a thing of the past! ...

12-02-2008, 01:57 PM	#85 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	it's easy to blame Hip Hop culture if one can just ignore the fact that the same problems existed in the black community pre-1980

12-03-2008, 05:20 PM	#92 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:54 PM..

12-04-2008, 03:00 PM	#94 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Forget racism - in a world where everyone is given the same opportunities, the demographics of bodies such as legislatures will naturally end up close to the demographics of the population as a whole. There's a huge difference between government bodies not matching the population demographics and a basketball team not doing so. Unless you're about to argue that black people's brains work differently than white people...but I don't think you want to go down that road. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-04-2008, 03:31 PM	#96 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:53 PM..

12-04-2008, 03:48 PM	#98 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	If all things were "equal," I would tend to think that mathematically, over a "statistically significant" period of time, the demographics of elected bodies (especially something like state legislatures, governorships, and the federal legislative bodies) would tend towards the population demographics. edit: Damn you, you filthy bastard!!! Foiled...once again!!! __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

12-04-2008, 03:53 PM	#100 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	pig, you can follow me directly from my central limit theorem any day.

12-04-2008, 04:01 PM	#101 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	I'm glad I checked my math before I posted because I was definitely about to point foot A into mouth B. Moving right along!

12-04-2008, 04:31 PM	#102 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	bro, I'd get all around your distribution and pull up to your asymptote any day :P __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

12-04-2008, 04:32 PM	#103 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:52 PM..

12-04-2008, 04:51 PM	#104 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	all of those factors would apply to anybody, regardless of race. so we start over again. i also find it somewhat amusing to see you say that "that theory would never hold up in the real world." it seems that your theory - that a single semi-black man being elected office should significantly alter hiring policies and directives...well, might not hold up in the real world. that black people, or other ethnic minorities, fail because they all emulate drug-lord and nwa rap videos...might not hold up in the real world. whatever - we simply disagree on this point. i'm perfectly open to discussions of race relations in the united states, or in general - but the pretense that a single event should dramatically alter our perception of things is something i find difficult to believe...other than to say "it is possible." i'll throw out another statistical term - outlier. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style