Talk:Slacker

message: 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)
thread_title: Don't reinvent the wheel

message: 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)
thread_title: Racist myth

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I just did it myself after all. - 81.179.69.230 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased As All Hell

message: 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)
thread_title: Reference collecting

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Blows

message: 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)
thread_title: Bart Simpson

message: People who suffer from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are not “slackers.”
Bwrs (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of &#8220;slacking&#8221; 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed this citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge "[[goofing off]]" into this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Church of the SubGenius