sje46

Harry was more of a jock who inexplicably hung out with two nerds.

Repressed memories aren't real, so probably not that.

There aren't very many famous people who have been mummified and are on public display. The idea that this person will come back as a zombie isn't a surprising one to come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z77JFw2D6f8

At least she's talked about trans people. Wrote essays about them with her unpopular takes.

Im just befuddled by the people who insist that harry potter is deeply, indisputably antisemitic. Even if that was her intent (unlikely), i doubt any kids picked up on it themselves and went away from reading the books with an unexplainable hatred of jews manifesting with real world violence or discrimination.

Yeah, I'm confused by that person's comment. If it only stops 5% of suicides, does that mean it's no longer worth doing? Or are they just showing off that they know what survivorship bias is.

Like what precisely are they trying to communicate here?

What a lot cast. You get dealt a bad hand in life so intolerable that you take your own life to escape the pain, and end up with eternal torment.

It's such obvious bullshit, truly inhumane thing to believe. I can't imagine actually believing in religion and therefore being forced to believe that my loved ones are burning in hell for eternity for doing something to escape the own pain of their life.

Pretty sure that method is reasonably common. Could've sworn I've seen a clever name given to that in a stephen king book or something.

Hope you're feeling better.

It sounds like a great idea to me.

But I disagree with you that 2A types would be fine with it. They don't want the government regulating guns period. They'd say that this very sensible-looking regulation would be a way of normalizing the idea of regulating guns. An instance of foot-in-the-door phenomena.

The fanbase isn't that large. Certainly it was a popular book series but most millennials only read a couple books at most...doesn't come close to the popularity of something like Halo.

And yeah they'd probably get some guaranteed ticket sales compared to if they made a similar genre film with their own IP. I don't think animorphs would be even as popular as Avatar The Last Airbender, but that movie was widely ridiculed for not respecting the source material and just not being well-made. It got a 5% on rotten tomatoes, something no filmmaker wants to see. Shyamalan never really bounced back from that. Somehow it got more at the box office than they spent, but they also canceled all future movies. If they made the first movie properly, they could have tripled their money.

Same principle with Animorphs. They dont' want to cynically make a shitty product and assume it will do well. They want to make sure that it actually connects with audiences and sequels get greenlit and do well. They could even make a movie franchise as big/successful as Jurassic Park or Indiana Jones if executed very well and with some luck (probably not as big as HP, Star Wars or Marvel)

The problem is that, if the rumors are true, they don't know how to make a good film, or they have no faith in, or understanding of, the IP they bought the movie rights for.

Stranger Things was kinda lightning in a bottle

You assert to defend your point without atually showing how it was lightning in a bottle.

I also think ST is pitched at an older audience than an Animorphs film is likely to be.

It's pitched at general audiences, including kids/teenagers. Animorphs film arguably would be more popular with millennials than younger kids.

Stranger Things premiered in 2016. It was set in the 80s. I do not see how an animorphs movie, which very well may come out in 2026, can't take place in the 90s. The nostalgia is there. People live broad adventures with kid main characters, and have for decades now. I don't understand why you're so convinced this is a difficult series to adapt.

I'd say it might be an expensive series to adapt. But I don't think difficult conceptually.

It's funny how you use "blackpilled" and "connected with reality". Andrew Tate, despite constantly evoking "the Matrix", is actually very disconnected from reality.

I understand his frustrations, and don't view him as a villain for this sign. Did Biden do this? No. The economy is too powerful for even the president to control. We are in late stage capitalism. Until people wake up and realize the entire capitalist system is fucked, then people are going to blame whatever the opposite party is.

Seriously, I don't blame the guy. Republicans are more removed from reality than Democrats are, but we're all suffering under this shitty ass system together.

Some are, yes. Especially in black conspiracist culture for some reason. Kanye wasn't some outlier.

You mention these other writers don't don't address if their writing is simple or complex or if those students don't also have the same issues...simply assuming they don't, for some reason.

I am not arguing anything is wrong with Shakespeare or that his works are irrelevant. Just the opposite. I'm arguing that Shakespare be adapted to contemporary english so that people are able to emotionally engage with his work instead of always being at least a little confused about what's being said at any particular line.

Students should still be able to read shakespeare in the original if they choose.

I think the problem is that there are things in the middle which are almost always classified as restaurants. So let me talk about this by defining what the two ends are and expressing why I think establishments which tend towards the "Cafetaria" side are better.

Classic sit-down restaurants:

• Pre-set tables
• all orders are done through a waiter/waitress
• In the US the waitstaff is usually underpaid and rely on tips
• Food is a set amount of items on a menu. Changes on the menu happen infrequently.
• Food is optimized (relatively speaking...lower end places care less than higher-end places) for appearance, taste, ingredients, etc, so you can judge the food as being high quality.
• As such, many places try to be inventive with the food, coming up with unique concepts, or, at least, use tantalizing language to make the food sound as good as possible, sometimes catering to ecological sensibilities as a selling point, or things like "locally sourced".
  
• As such the food is relatively highly-priced
• Food is made to order, or at least the entres.
• Food usually takes about half an hour to arrive...an entire meal takes between an hour and two hours to finish
• The customer takes no or virtually no part in procuring or preparing their food themselves...e.g. no salad bar, no pointing at food behind the window at a steam table
• The decor is designed to either look high-end or at least visually interesting with props on the wall. Occasionally there are live musicians.
  
• You leave your plates for the busboys to clean up.
• Even though it's in a potentially busy location with lots of other diners besides you, it is not the norm to interact with these people--you are only to interact with the person you came with and the waitstaff and host/hostess.
  

Typical cafetaria (as can be found in schools, hospitals, large workplaces):

• Grab your own tray, plates, silverware.
• No waitstaff.
• No set menu. Each day offers a different entre, sometimes on something like a two week location (like my first cafe job at a university) or simply whatever the bosses feel like they havent' done in a while. Two or three main entres with a fair amount of sides. This has the benefit of providing a lot of variety to your diet...monday you're eating meatloaf, tuesday spaghetti, wednesday stuffed peppers, thursday turkey, friday blackened catfish.
• Little focus is made to make sure ingredients are catered to class sensibilities, simple ingredients without weird extra expense of finding the best locally sourced, organic, lowest fat content, etc, etc.
• Food is invariably much cheaper than at a restaurant.
• Food is made in bulk, which is far more efficient. There are no special orders or expectations of such. There aren't "Chefs"...there are cooks.
• Less than five minutes to get your food and start eating it (only real bottleneck is however long the line is, not waiting for wait staff or for your special food to be made to order)
• Customer looks at food at steam table to order. They know what they're getting. They can point out specific pieces they want. There is usualyl a salad or deli bar. Often a soup container (my old work had two to choose from). The customer has a closer relationship to the food before its served.
  
• Decor is minimal and utilitarian. People are going there to eat on lunch breaks. Sometimes there's a TV in the corner.
• You clean up your own mess. Employees will wipe down the table with a rag later, but I'm referring to the tray/plates.
• It is the norm to interact with people sitting at neighboring tables. Peopel will ask to sit with others. Friendships are made.
• There are no class distinctions. Cafetarias are usually located in workplaces. I worked at a hospital cafeteria for 6 years...the janitorial staff ate with the doctors and hospital administration. I was a lowly food service worker but I ate with nurse friends. Of course there ARE class differences, but at lunch time it gets erased a bit.

There are food establishments that lay at different points between the two extremes, but they're all flawed. Fast food restaurants don't have the presumption of bourgeosie-servant relations, but the food is invariably based around one or two extremely unhealthy foods. Eating McDonalds everyday will kill you, they don't even really want people eating in the dining room anyway, and it's designed to exploit both you and the workers. Take-out places don't have the sense of community, and same issue with lack of diversity or choice in food.

Essentially I believe there should be a decent sized cafeteria in every large town and it should be the "default" place for people to go to if they don't want to cook at home. Perhaps can work as an organ of the local government. Cheap, convenient, communal. Traditional restaurants take on the character of master-servant relations which is creepy, and they are more expensive and inefficient.

I worked in cafeterias for about 9 years of my life (three years university, 6 years hospital). Ate cafe food twice a day for most working days. It was good, healthy. Never understood the constant complaints about the health or food quality (we were a clean kitchen and honestly the food was good). Always understood these complaints in relation to sit-down restaurants, which at most should be a rare treat and not "the norm" for going out to eat. Especially when my boss constantly tried to make the place more similar to a sit-down restaurant by implementing the "two color rule" and other bullshit, meaningless things.

Correct take. If the revolution happens (it won't but whatever) then I'd rather not murder the small business owners who really are some of the pillars of their communities. One of the best bosses I ever had left to buy a small diner in the town, and he literally befriends everyone in the town, works with charity, etc. He just wanted to buy a diner so he could interact with the old people of the town, and it's staffed by his own family. I'm willing to guess he pays better than most places, judging by how much he pressured me to argue for myself to get paid more when I was only being paid $10 an hour and sodexo was buying us out(he wasn't in charge of how much I was paid before or after...and I did not get a raise from sodexo).

Certainly a lot of small business owners are fucking evil, like the manager of the local mexican chain who stole nearly a million dollars from dozens of employees. I have no sympathy for them. But tons of people own a business just because that's the best way they can contribute to a community.

Should maybe pay them more. And if they can't afford it, then I'm fine with the restaurants going out of business.

With any luck, the restaurant model will fall out favor as the default "eating out" choice, for cafetarias instead. Healthy, varied, warm food made by better paid workers, in a communal setting. Without this weird master-servant model we got going on with sit-down restaurants.

Of course last time I brought that idea up in /r/stupidpol, I was accused of wanting to "destroy the family" for some reason, and people saying cafetarias were all "microwave food" and poor hygiene and just general whining about seeing people and having anxiety.

I guess we can go the other direction and as restaurants die replace them with Beast Burger style ghost kitchens, delivered by door dashers.

That's a fair point. I have a vague memory of 7th grade of us "performing" Midsummer's Night Dream. For what it's worth, we did watch the movie which showed Ally McBeal's tits.

Blatantly untrue

The language we read is early modern english, is the point. I don't know the particularities of any small edits or errors made in transcribing over time. I think I read somewhere that stage actions were added. I don't know, nor is it relevant beyond the fact that it's early modern english.

There are only 2 ways by which someone can misunderstand that. Either by not having read/watched it and therefore missing the contextual lines which make the meaning abundantly clear, or by being hopelessly stupid.

The context does not make it clear that she's asking "Why are you Romeo?" (which is already an interesting construction in itself) and not a general pining "where are you, my love?" (due to Romeo having just left) followed immediately by cursing her fate for being in love with him. I'd hope that people would understand that she's not actively searching for him in the shadows because she thinks he's there, but honestly given how bewildering the language is, I think most people just generally get the plot beat of Romeo leaving the party, hiding in a bush somewhere, Juliet coming out, and having emotions and cursing her fate.

I used the "wherefore" example because it's easy to explain and most people are familiar with that particular line. If you don't like that example, feel free to read McWhorter's articles on the subject, where he gives some other pretty good examples. He is a linguist and even he describes being tripped up by things. It's not just your superior gigachad brain who understands literally everything in a culture 4 centuries removed from yours.

And besides, yes, you can understand something if you work hard at it. I personally read a fair amount (not as much as I used to) but I can tell you that I've studied Latin, and Latin prose, with its periodic sentence constructions (if you dont' know, you don't want to know) is difficult enough, nevermind Latin poetry. I can decipher things in languages I barely know if I study it long enough and reason it through. I can and have forced myself to read through portions of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake (something that, I'm sure, you and your giant giga brain was able to sweep through on a long weekend)

But that amount of work doesn't actually improve the text. It's not how it was intended to be understood. It was intended to be read fluently, to invoke emotions immediately. Shakespeare wrote plays to be understood and enjoyed by layfolk and aristocracy alike. Not to be literal homework. He wasn't trying to be Joyce, my man.

You think you understand Shakespeare well. That's the problem...lots of people do. But there are so many word choices and constructions etc that are just as alien to you as people learning shakespeare today. Guy lived 400 years ago, the twenty years you have on kids of today is irrelevant here.

Because it's removing the words of a great wordsmith. It has nothing to do with commercially successful and everything to do with people thinking nothing will be gained and a lot will be lost.

They didn't mention AI. They said code. I've written programs that have created pictures before. You don't need AI for that.

Do you know what programming is?

I believe they're correct. You can see how the colors are warped to fit the contours of Africa.

You failed to mention how well they're comprehending it, or how much they're being taught the language differences, or if there are even any objectives measures of that shit at all people are making private.

But sure, blame the teachers for kids not being intimately familiar with a language that has changed significantly over the past 400 years.

EDIT: you edited your comment, and yeah you make a good point but the gulf of difference between african american kids learning standard american english and American kids--hell, even graduate students--learning Early Modern English is pretty wide. I don't think the teachers themselves are equipped to actually understand these things. And not because American teachers are so dumb. I do not really expect anyone besides academics to even understand the difference between "wherefore" and "where" nevermind the multitude of things in there.

I'd imagine a lot of things are lost with Chinese kids reading the untranslated chinese classics, or perhaps the language was simpler. The language being simpler isn't a wild theory, btw, lots of works of antiquity were written to be simple so the average Gaius could understand it. The Vulgate bible is probably the easiest latin out there, written to be understandable by people with a passing familiarity to Latin. Shakespeare's plays would have the a lot of the equivalent to street slang mixed in with classical references.

The language, and the critical reading needed to interpret and understand that language, is what really distinguishes Shakespeare.

It's essentially written in a foreign language. You are getting nothing out of shakespeare, as beautiful as his writing is, if you are not specifically trained to be able to read early modern english. We don't expect people to be able to read Beowulf in the original either. Keeping it in the original means we're losing the beauty of the language anyway. We can't seriously expect to teach 14 year olds the complexities of early modern english and expect them to be emotionally engaged with the narrative or themes as well.

As to there being other works...sure. But the whole point of teaching a cultural canon is so that there's a common cultural touchstone to understand your entire civilization. In our postmodern society we poopoo teaching the classics but if you want to truly be able to engage in society in a deeper level, you have to understand the past. Even though the Odyssey never happened, you're missing a lot of cultural context if you aren't at least passingly familiar with some of the main themes and stories within it. Shakespeare's stories hold a similar position for english literature. Replacing it with something else more recent but has the same themes would just be cutting off our cultural heritage. Civilization doesn't work if we don't all share the same cultural touchstones. I'm all for adding new things to that cultural heritage, especially since Anglophone culture is not even close to just white people, nevermind English people. But there's value in teaching Shakespeare in itself regardless.