go away. you are a weirdo if you are reading this.
they are happy to spend money on technology and shiny new buildings.
they aren't spending money on teaching staff. teaching staff who are now more credentialed than ever, but know less than ever.
the issue is the metricization of education. everything must be measured... and this creates a perverse system where everything is now about increasing the metrics, regardless of improving education.
not to mention the changing in parenting where ever parent things their child is a genius and it's the 'school system' that's failing their kid, instead of their kid being a dumbass jerk who refuses to learn or participate in their own education.
or maybe kids should learn to do that on their own free time as it interests them and focus on more basic skillsets.
you can't code if you can't read or do math. you can't do graphic design if you don't know how to draw and the basics of color theory and all that.
one of the greatest mistakes in modern usa education is forgetting the idea that skills build on one another and you can't do more advanced things without mastering the basics first. but today we shove kids forward no matter their level of competency because we are not allowed to punish or poorly grade those who fail to learn new skills. we punish the teachers for holding the students accountable to standards, and we reward the teachers/schools who shove kids through the system and 'innovate' new ways for them to inflate test scores.
the problem with American education is cultural. other countries have stronger cultures around education.
and certain groups in America have very strong cultures around education, mostly Asians and wealthier people, but those are minorities in the broader culture which basically sees education as annoying and stupid crap they have to do to get a job, that they want to do in the cheapest way possible.
if being a teacher started at a salary of 80-100K, things would be a lot different. But it takes a decade or more of teaching to get that level of pay. The only people paid well in education are administrators, who are the ones who give themselves raises and stagnant teacher pay to their own benefit.
and it's the same at all levels of education, because American culture says 'be a greedy shitty person on top who enriches yourself at the expense of everyone else'. and we see the classroom as place to wage a culture war first and foremost, and education is much lower on the priority list.
whose reality? people live in very different realities and in 2025 the notion of a shared reality is ever more tenuous as people bubble themselves up.
i invoke fallacies because they are part of reality. the vast majority of human beings operate with cognitive and logical fallacies, there are inherent aspects of every single person.
you can prattle on about your perfect society where intolerance is not allowed, but how are you going to enforce that? through violence? would you yourself, wish to be subject to such violence if you yourself had thoughts that society deemed intolerant? if so, great. but many people would not want to be a part of such a society.
right, so just kill everyone you don't agree with. sounds like a very progressive and liberated and FREE society... one where you must live in terror and fear lest you upset the government or your neighbor.
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
and even if you provide all of that, there is a subset of the population that will prefer to remain homeless. within homeless communities there is often an identity and a pride. it's not all shame.
some would rather be a big shot in the homeless community than an nobody in a low wage job.
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
it can be both. and in reality, it tends to be a product of both things. it can also be a product of mental illness combined with the other two things.
a lot of homeless people's stories are a combination of bad luck and bad choices and a system that has very limited and narrow pathways out of homelessness.
but it's true people tend to believe it's one or the other.
and for some homeless, it is very much one or the other. not all homeless folks are homeless for the same reasons.
the difficulty really lies in how much resources are you going to contribute to certain particular difficult people? there is a significant subset of the homeless population who do not want to become productive citizens and I'm not sure it's morally correct for us to force them to so so. I mean, are we suppose to jail addicts if they don't want to anti-addiction treatments and force them into it? or do we allow addicts to decide for themselves when they want to stop being addicts?
most people are really uncomfortable with putting themselves in the shoes of these folks and the complexities involved. they tend to either demonize or anglicize them and fail to be able to imagine the circumstances under which they could be come homeless, especially if they never lived with the shadow of that possibility in their lives.
true, but it sucks.
a movie is meant to be consumed as a unified whole. so is each tv episode. it's typically more immersive when you watch it whole.
yeah this is just that large singular tasks tend to demand more of us than multiple smaller tasks.
because most people put it on as background noise, like they did with TV.
half my my 'binge watching' is me falling asleep and waking up four hours later and the show is still going on. And then the next day I go back to where I was, usually 5-6 episodes back.
or they just have more patient and different standards than you do.
tons of shows are bad or awkward in their first season, and then go on to become blockbusters later on as the creative team finds its stride. that's just part of the process. Very few shows are banger from start to finish because of all the complexity involve in creating a show over multiple years.
Personally I really enjoy watching how a show changes over time as team members, cast members, etc come and go. Part of my enjoyment of a show is the process of the show changing, for better or worse. And it's interesting to compare seasons and episodes against each other as they vary in quality.
nah, clearly it's that anyone who doesn't like what I like is stupid and anything i don't like is wrong and bad.
and anyone who says otherwise is dumb and wrong, because my ego is incredibly fragile and can't process that other people have different opinions than me, and some of those people have superior and far more informed opinions than my own...
god forbid I admit I have preferences and limits to my understanding! i might be forced to acknowledge that other people have different preferences and limits and they are just as legitimate as my own!
yeah i didn't regard it as a particular difficult film at all.
but people are different and at different levels. tons of people in this thread seem to flip out at the notion some films aren't for everyone. not everyone reads at the same grade level, but for some reason the idea of films being at different levels is very offensive to folks.
running a marathon is a lot harder than running a mile. and we have people who can't run a mile telling us marathons are stupid and shouldn't exist.
a story is a narrative construct. it doesn't need any particular structure. I mean, yeah in writing 101 class they tell you it needs all sorts of things, but writing 101 is a vast oversimplification of the diversity of stories and narratives that are possible and exist. I read plenty of books and watch films that have no clear linear narrative, and some of which the point of the movie/film is that such narratives themselves are suspect, oftentimes in the effort to reflect or explore the non-linearity of human consciousness. You seem to think only the writing 101 definition is the only legitimate way to think of things and claiming everything that isn't neat and tidy.
Just because my writing teacher demands a particular story structure, doesn't mean that's the only type of structure that is valid. It's juts the one that's valid for getting a good grade in her class. When you start reading stuff at more advanced levels the 'rules' you are taught typically no longer apply or are optional. That's true of a lot of things. And some of my teachers think I'm a major asshole for talking about things that don't fit into the neat little writing 101 formula.
Yeah it's totally OK to only watch a portion of it. When I wrote papers for film class I typically focused on one scene or segment and watched in dozens of times and wrote specifically about that. That's what film class is. You watch the movie as a whole, then break it down into components and learn how they function, and work together. You also figure out what may be problematic and identify the influences, target audience, and lots of other things.
My mom has dementia. Linearity no longer exists for her. Her memories are all jumbled and she conflates the past with the present and has no sense of time or identity anymore. I read a book called Wittgenstein's Mistress that is about a person with dementia. The book has no story in the conventional sense. It is a first person story about someone who keeps reliving their memories and can't make new ones and the repeated memories keep changing and distorting. It was incredibly powerful because it helped me understand and empathize with what is going on inside my mother's brain. I'm sure for you such a novel would be a confusing piece of shit that made zero sense. It has no plot, no storyline, no conclusions, and arguable, no characters. Yet it still tells a clear and distinct story about a person.
oh, so she's poly?
No, it's not. My argument is that just because you don't like 2001 doesn't mean it's stupid and bad. I think it's a great film. So do most people educated in film who have a broader understanding of the medium.
You are conflating general audience exceptions of a conventional hollywood narrative as some form of universal merit. As if there aren't audiences outside of that mold. As if art film doesn't or shouldn't exist.
Harmon writes for general audiences. I'm well aware of him and his work. His biggest fans are people who think they are smarter than everyone else and that Rick and Morty and Community are genius level works of art... because they are very referential and self-referential, but they are ultimately neat and tidy and comforting and built on familiar tropes. They are not designed to be challenging or interested and don't demand much of the viewer. Nothing about his story telling is complex or open ended. And that's fine, but it's not the only kind story structure or film/show that exists.
Dude, you just hate open ended stories. Just say that. I have watched Dan Harmon stuff and it's funny, and enjoyable, but I also find it trite and nihilistic. It's superficially enjoyable, but 2001 is a lot more enjoyable on deeper levels and a work of art. Dan Harmon doesn't make art, he makes entertainment.
so your argument is you are right because you are you and all that matters is your opinion on things?
and auto-motive engineers, are wrong if they don't agree with your layman definition of a car?
Must be nice to be smarter than professionals who make movies and cars. Wish I as much of a genius as you clearly are.
is your friend single and hot?
you sound like a menace to polite Christian society, sir.
Your gum chewing shall corrupt the children and women, and lead weak men astray.
you did if you took calculus. but only 20% of students take calclus and only 40% take pre calc.
you don't need them for geo, tri, or algebra