You're viewing part of a thread.
For many people, reading is boring.
And sometimes it's the role of education to expose students to things they benefit from but wouldn't necessarily seek out on their own. Reading comprehension and use of language is a vital skill to function as an adult in society, and to acquire that you need to read, a lot. Short texts, long texts, different styles, poetry, prose, etc. There's really no way around it.
Dont you know kids though? Boring is death.
/s
Reading comprehension and use of language is a vital skill to function as an adult in society, and to acquire that you need to read, a lot.
I have yet to see evidence of this being the case.
You haven't been looking very hard I gather. There are numerous studies done on the benefits of reading, you could use your preferred search engine to read a few of them perhaps.
My real point is is that most people just coast through life with no real intellectual stimulation. They will even deride people with hobbies more involved then watching sitcoms and critize students when they take classes not related to a career path
Is it actually a vital skill though? I feel like this isn't really true.
Most jobs don't require precise and skillful use of language.
Society is a lot more than just work though - and I'd argue it's the least interesting part - but yes, if you're going to communicate with people, verbally or in writing, it's going to be beneficial to you in your line of work.
But how about being able to understand other people and the world around you better and perhaps contribute to it? Be able to involve yourself in the democratic process perhaps or otherwise benefit your community? I could go on and on, but who cares about any of that anymore, right?
It probably doesn't matter.
Nuances of language don't really matter with large political topics like:
Laws based on biblical concepts vs individual freedom
or
Immigrant rights vs. Impact on locals
or
Supporting people with government subsidies by taxing wealthy people vs people fend for themselves
These large societal differences don't need nuanced or clever language to be debated, nor are they somehow informed by learning boredom tolerance by getting through some snoreathon book written hundreds of years ago like the great gatsby
ironically i once told a guy the great gatsby was my favorite book to try to seem smart because i wanted to suck his dick, so i cant say i never got any benefit from that book.
So your argument is politics should be cartoonish, stylized and theatrical instead of nuanced and actually constructive? Congratulations, you got your wish. Just be sure to make the most of it before the masters of simplification and emotionally charged language - the fascists - take over, it's just a matter of time I guess.
I disagree that nuanced and sophisticated english language skills are needed for debates. Even getting into complex debates can be done without nuanced language.
I think if 3 years of English Lit were replaced with ecological science, society would be less likely to perish.
I am not as optomistic as you that somehow complex boring books are a panacea for fascism, which is not only linked to ignorance, but also religion and usually prejudiced analysis that is passed on through word of mouth or online and rarely refuted. Hamlet won't stop Nazism.
Facism also tends to increase when groups in society feel like their quality of life is declining and they don't understand the economics involved or how to change it and invent a type of mythology to explain things they can't grasp. A better way of reducing fascism is by teaching an anti-fascism course in school AND reducing inflation by not doing things that will cause bizarre secondary economic effects but sound good to naive voters.
For instance:
"let's raise the minimum wage to 30 dollar so everyone is comfortable"
vs
"let's eliminate the minimum wage entirely and provide free health care and a $200 housing voucher for people who need it funded by taxes"
one of those makes people happy but fucks up the economy and increases inflation, and one improves things without causing bizarre secondary problems, and the average voter doesn't know the difference
The idea that "Oh, if all the morons likely to believe facist ideology are just taught Hamlet, it will all be okay" probably over-estimates the iq of the average person who would read it. Facism stems more from changes in living standards and a lack of feelings of control rather than from an ability to reason.
The idea that "Oh, if all the morons likely to believe facist ideology are just taught Hamlet, it will all be okay"
Well, of course nobody said that, it's a gross oversimplification of my argument - a strawman - which I guess is very fitting in this context.
That's not true, it's literally what you said.
To quoeth you exactly, you said "Hamlet, that will fix them Nazis."
Arguments about politics don’t need a 2000 word essay on the meaning of Daisy’s pier light being green instead of yellow.
No one is arguing that. Less-dumbed-down, thoughtful and well-formulated arguments and debates would benefit everyone, though. Especially if the audience is educated enough to be able to appreciate them.
pier light?
The mansion in which Daisy resides with whats-his-name has a light at its end. It blinks green.
What? Why?
Probably so ships don’t bump into it?
I am really glad the hot dude never asked me about that
Is this comment sarcastic? Because yes actually I do think that a firm grasp of language and rhetoric are incredibly valuable in both discussing and understanding all of those topics.
Literally all of it is true
Including the "favorite book" part, which ultimately worked
That sucker got sucked, probably due to misbelieving my lies of erudition
Glad that you rate your own subjective opinions as true.
I am also glad i rate my own subjective opinions as true