hunter-djura

[hunter-djura]

Hard agree.

Additionally, as someone with ADHD - I'm aware of how time affects relationships. It's no mystery that people change over time and so too must your relationships.

It's not front of mind, but I doubt that most people think of their less contacted friends in such a systematized way either.

Speaking of; Friendship 'mechanics' is quite telling.

[hunter-djura]

[hunter-djura]

incredible how many people think this was an accident or he could be a victim or innocent or whatever. the car was full of fireworks, target explosives, guns and gasoline (it's a tesla). the driver killed themselves before the explosion. if he were alive he'd probably have mentioned to someone by now that someone stole his id and rented car and tattoos (??) and that, you know... he wasn't dead?

come on guys read a fucking news article for once before being contrarian.

[hunter-djura]

No Dogs Under Heaven

[hunter-djura]

translatology themed Seinfeld episode where Elaine goes out with a german guy who is an ardent admirer of Walter Benjamin's Task of the Translator so she starts using german idioms translated word for word into english¹. George, a strict adherent to Vermeer's Skopos Theory² ("always been a skopos guy. it's straight to the point. what's going on in hermeneutics? nobody knows! no idea, no skopos!"), makes fun of her for this but then grows a moustache and retrieves his toupé to resemble Benjamin more closely so Wilhelm will think he's in deep translatological thought when he's just looking out the window. the plan backfires, as Steinbrenner associates his new look with Trotsky³ ("shave that beard off George, we're running the Yankees here, not a newspaper!") Jerry is dating a brasilian girl who studied under Rosemary Arrojo, and is accused by Kramer of supporting monolingual regimes bc he wouldn't learn portuguese for her. However, concluding he should show more interest in her work, he tries to impress her by reading Cixous' Reading with Clarice Lispector, in reaction to which the girl breaks up with him ("she broke up with me, George! she said she wanted Cleopatra in bed, not a colonizer!" "Cleopatra?!" "Yes! Can you believe it?" "Nah, you don't have the nose for it.")⁵ Kramer misunderstands Anthropophagic Translation⁶ and thinks Newman wants to eat him.

[hunter-djura]

So bored & tired of people responding to posts with "I read this as x incorrect thing and just accepted it" or whatever. It's like, either you're sharing a tiny momentary reading mistake (who cares) or the joke is just the same 'wow you guys are so weird and random' shtick in a new form.

'Wow you guys are so weird that I can just substitute in random words and it'd still read like an average tumblr post.' ugh.

maybe we shouldn't constantly announce how unaccustomed and uncomfortable we are with anything remotely whimsical or novel, thus creating and enforcing boundaries between what is 'normal' and what you are likely just unfamiliar with; limiting your exposure to and subsequent growth from new information and experiences by grouping them under the ambiguous label of 'other'.

maybe, if we find something strange or unusual, we just... get over it without announcing the fact? sometimes tolerance is just stopping yourself from shouting 'weird!'.

[hunter-djura]

So I finished reading The Book of Elsewhere. Not a bad read, although it's easy to tell how Reeves influenced and determined the course of the story, the adolescent throughline.

More than that, is the frustration. This is, in a sense a spoiler, but how it fits in for those that care, will not be obvious or that important.

Entropy is not the opposite of change. It is not anti-change, stillness, death. It is not a force, or anti-force, or anything at all. It is a metric by which we might quantify change. It is change. We say 'it' gives Time's arrow direction, but this language is misleading - there is no it. It is the term we use to comprehend why Time's arrow has a direction, not the other way around.

All interactions create (in a sense) and transfer information. Two billiard balls strike, and in their new paths they hold some information about that strike, and the path that other ball took to reach it. And the path another ball took to strike that first other ball to richochet into the most recent strike. Less information, harder to discern; more possible strikes and paths that could result in that path that caused the most recent strike. But some.

And that information, the way it slowly spreads out, is made inaccessible, yet remains? That's Entropy.

The complexity of that journey, from the pool cue striking to the end of that game, ever growing, even as the balls leave the board - that's Entropy.

You can't make the journey less complex, because to touch that path is to add information about your journey, to take information away from it, each of your stories adds the others, and all the stories they took from others too. The complexity can only grow. Time moves in one direction, because to reduce the complexity is to reduce Entropy is to move backwards in time.

Which is, of course, the ugliest and most reductive metaphor for the complex system of our reality. Which I wield so crudely to make the point: Change is not the opposite of Entropy, Entropy IS Change.

And this false dualism is terribly frustrating because I am not that learned in science or math and I understand this well and it is really not that hard to think about googling this before you go to the effort of writing an entire book.

[hunter-djura]

looking at this painting its easy to see how the bolsheviks won. i mean that guys fucking huge what the hell is anyone else gonna do

[hunter-djura]

tough fucking luck losing my cart and my pack of camels in the same 48 hour period i suspect that it may have been ghouls

[hunter-djura]

ill spend my twenties investigating the healing properties of salt i dont know about you guys

[hunter-djura]

Your first point: Problem: inability to handle critique. Cause: Too much praise. Implied solution: less and/or more selective praise. I am not, did not suggest restricting critique. The irony of this being on the topic of reading comprehension is delicious.

Propositions often contain inverted propositions - 'The sky is blue' also contains 'The sky is not red' and so on. 'blatantly misunderstand or missing context' and 'blatantly wrong, like A Modest Proposal levels of wrong.' both imply a right version. Which is not a universal fact, and often literary analysis and discussion relies upon interpretation. You are speaking on a wide ranging topic, so if you have specific examples or instances in mind, it would help to clarify. Absent these, it still reads as you responding to those instances, but within the guise of diagnosing a larger societal ill to justify what otherwise seems petty. Further, you acknowledge that things can be complicated and nuanced in point four, but don't appreciate my acknowledgement of it above. Which reads to me as a lame excuse. Things are complicated and nuanced only when you believe I am being totalizing and absolute, but largely you write as if there are universal truthes. I also don't appreciate you attempting to rewrite and falsely attribute certain ideas to me. It is deeply hypocritical to complain about my doing so after claiming to know the contents of my mind.

Appeal to authority / widespread belief. You said teachers are 'often assholes'. Further, you state 'teachers are in a position of power over children, and people who want to abuse that power are likely to seek it out'. These are strong claims, which you fail to evidence, leaving the reader (myself) to interpret them as personal opinion. Your defense of the post being 'off the cuff' further reinforces that interpretation. You are not speaking as an authority, this is your own 'take', it is personal and not highly developed. The issue I take here is how prescriptive and negatively it speaks on children, teachers, the education system and society as a whole. You talk a lot of shit, but can't take it. Also: 'that weird thing where kids now believe that everyone has to agree on everything or they're experiencing violence'. Sure thing, champ. It's totally okay to disagree and it's just an off the cuff post.

Yes, you contradict yourself. Acknowledging that doesn't change that. Yes, things are complicated and nuanced. I did not say otherwise, and in fact I attempted to imply as much. You then start soap-boxing about society again for some reason. I don't decide policy, but thanks.

I believe you are largely wrong, and I have my own thoughts on the matter, but you are correct that it's likely impossible to have a single, straightforward correct answer to this topic. Which is why I didn't supply it. Refuting each and every one of your initial arguments would be exhausting and repetitive. I felt how I wrote about the first two was sufficient to outline the general issue with your post. I also didn't say I wasn't trying to diagnose them in the tags. Again, the fact that the topic at hand is reading comprehension and you continue to generate entirely new remarks to attribute to me is incredible. You're not even arguing with what I've said at this point.

You are the first interaction I've had on my blog in months. I'm not worried about further spreading your post, and considering I responded to dispute it, I am charitable enough to believe anyone following me would not exclusively read your post and then skip my response. I also don't need to provide a full take down, as I said just above. It's not mandatory, and if you require a full point by point response before you accept critique (oh, the irony!), feel free to follow what I actually wrote in the tags and ignore me.

Finally, and most importantly, this isn't about how you are mean and bad, and I am not attempting to deplatform you. You aren't getting cancelled. I very deliberately chose my language to show that I was interpreting, subjectively, your points as being mean spirited. I don't know you, or the contents of your heart. You just sound like a boomer and a complete dick (to me).

things I think are responsible for the reading comprehension crisis, rather than the things people always talk about:

people get so worried that kids will hate reading that they profusely compliment any analysis young kids make, even when it's blatantly wrong, like A Modest Proposal levels of wrong. which means later when someone argues they refuse to listen because they think they're perfect at analyzing books

teachers are so overworked and undersupplied (and often assholes) that they demand only a specific version of analysis that they agree with and if anyone has any competing arguments they get their grades docked. possibly due to above

because of the literacy crisis, people keep putting huge, daunting classics in front of kids instead of fun books. this leads kids to believe that books can't be fun. or that books can only be fun if you pretend they have nothing to say

knowing that encouraging reluctant readers in reading literally anything improves literacy, people start encouraging all readers the same way. this leads to kids believing they're super smart and special readers who read way above grade level when they're actually falling seriously behind

the attitude of 'everyone has something worthwhile to say' means that people work really hard to compliment students who say things that are pointless or even fundamentally wrong. while withholding praise from students who make creative contributions in case it seems 'unfair'

that weird thing where kids now believe that everyone has to agree on everything or they're experiencing violence

increased push for diverse perspectives in fiction simultaneous with a push against describing the backgrounds or social situations of various authors (or historical figures in general) means there's less context and more confusion

it seems like people have stopped explaining that you can enjoy something artistically while disagreeing with its message or values? I blame advertisers for this one because it's the thing that lets kids not fall for commercials

too much emphasis on how 'everyone is smart' instead of placing less social import on intelligence. leads to ideas like 'no one can be more talented at anything than anyone else, they only practiced more' which makes more perceptive kids dumb down their analysis so no one thinks they're being stuck up. it also makes people believe no two books could be saying different things

the strong push against TV, movies, video games, etc. being considered art means people no longer bother to analyze them artistically. so they don't exercise the same skills they'd need for reading while doing other things

and the related push that reading is always a 'brainy' activity and all books are 'equally smart', meaning that even books that don't say much must secretly be incredibly complex and have deep, well-researched messages. which leads to people inventing things that aren't there. and since they have nothing to practice on, also no learning how to pick up on things that are there

the idea that there's some inherent divide between 'mindless' activities and 'intellectual' activities, and that it's a trait of the activities themselves, not how people engage with them. so people are under the impression they don't have to try to do anything in particular. it'll just happen

the creepy thing where people universalize history and think everything has always been the same as it is now, only worse (or better, depending) and related misunderstandings

whatever has happened to fact-checking

novels genuinely are worse quality now because there's less money in it and therefore way more constraints on who writes and what they write and how it gets popularized

[hunter-djura]

Point 1.

A poor start. There are things that may deserve praise, even if they draw incorrect conclusions (of any degree). Praising kids that read and analyze text proportionate to how correct they are is both discouraging and an impossible metric given the non-objective nature of literary analysis.

Further, how one receives and responds to feedback is not exclusively tied into how correct or incorrect they believe themselves to be. They're children. Learning how to receive critique, and social graciousness more broadly, is a process; one they are still in the early stages of.

Point 2.

Teachers need more resources, more time... and they're also often assholes? Okay, that seems very personal so we'll just move forward. You mention their requiring a single specific analysis, which you just implicitly championed above. This comes back around to being highly personal, because this immediately sounds like you think there IS a single correct answer, it's just that other people frequently disagree with you and are thus assholes and refuse to listen, ect.

...

I could go on, but to be quite frank: your points often contradict themselves, undermine your position, (often within the same item) and more broadly; I feel this is mean spirited, laced with anger lacking a subject and largely fails to correctly diagnose the problem.

things I think are responsible for the reading comprehension crisis, rather than the things people always talk about:

people get so worried that kids will hate reading that they profusely compliment any analysis young kids make, even when it's blatantly wrong, like A Modest Proposal levels of wrong. which means later when someone argues they refuse to listen because they think they're perfect at analyzing books

teachers are so overworked and undersupplied (and often assholes) that they demand only a specific version of analysis that they agree with and if anyone has any competing arguments they get their grades docked. possibly due to above

because of the literacy crisis, people keep putting huge, daunting classics in front of kids instead of fun books. this leads kids to believe that books can't be fun. or that books can only be fun if you pretend they have nothing to say

knowing that encouraging reluctant readers in reading literally anything improves literacy, people start encouraging all readers the same way. this leads to kids believing they're super smart and special readers who read way above grade level when they're actually falling seriously behind

the attitude of 'everyone has something worthwhile to say' means that people work really hard to compliment students who say things that are pointless or even fundamentally wrong. while withholding praise from students who make creative contributions in case it seems 'unfair'

that weird thing where kids now believe that everyone has to agree on everything or they're experiencing violence

increased push for diverse perspectives in fiction simultaneous with a push against describing the backgrounds or social situations of various authors (or historical figures in general) means there's less context and more confusion

it seems like people have stopped explaining that you can enjoy something artistically while disagreeing with its message or values? I blame advertisers for this one because it's the thing that lets kids not fall for commercials

too much emphasis on how 'everyone is smart' instead of placing less social import on intelligence. leads to ideas like 'no one can be more talented at anything than anyone else, they only practiced more' which makes more perceptive kids dumb down their analysis so no one thinks they're being stuck up. it also makes people believe no two books could be saying different things

the strong push against TV, movies, video games, etc. being considered art means people no longer bother to analyze them artistically. so they don't exercise the same skills they'd need for reading while doing other things

and the related push that reading is always a 'brainy' activity and all books are 'equally smart', meaning that even books that don't say much must secretly be incredibly complex and have deep, well-researched messages. which leads to people inventing things that aren't there. and since they have nothing to practice on, also no learning how to pick up on things that are there

the idea that there's some inherent divide between 'mindless' activities and 'intellectual' activities, and that it's a trait of the activities themselves, not how people engage with them. so people are under the impression they don't have to try to do anything in particular. it'll just happen

the creepy thing where people universalize history and think everything has always been the same as it is now, only worse (or better, depending) and related misunderstandings

whatever has happened to fact-checking

novels genuinely are worse quality now because there's less money in it and therefore way more constraints on who writes and what they write and how it gets popularized

[hunter-djura]

it's real fucking dismal that the average usamerican unaffiliated self-declared "leftist" has politics so hollow and vibes-based that they're stuck in this cycle of constantly voicing support for global reactionaries/imperialists/outright fascists on the basis of "well protestors are, like, usually the good guys, right?"

[hunter-djura]

me lecturing to my students except they're my shadows on the wall and nothing i say makes sense and there's nothing and nobody if there even was, anymore

[hunter-djura]

This with the stupid avatar movies. A future where we figured out superluminal travel (literally breaking causality!) and functional immortality via artificially grown bodies with uploaded minds... and US marines are killing indigenous people for space ambergris. What a dim view of humanity.

I want less games about capitalism developed by people with less petty bourgeois aspirations and I am NOT joking

[hunter-djura]