Posts by Jonathan Ortiz2

So, how many teachers are actually extra?

I don't have the exact numbers on me, but we’re looking at moving toward a nine-year elementary school model to try and offset the shrinking student population. A nine-year setup naturally demands more staff than an eight-year one.

Wait, so we're just stretching out schooling for kids just to keep teachers employed? I can already hear the inevitable excuse coming—that "quality of education will improve" because kids can absorb material better over nine years instead of eight. Honestly, they could have just shrunk the class sizes where possible or introduced afternoon shifts instead...

What about math teachers?

- I honestly don't get why an elementary school math teacher needs a full-blown master's degree. It feels like overkill for the level of math being taught to little kids. At that stage, it's all about having those teaching skills—knowing how to present things so they aren't boring and actually make sense to a kid. You could probably nail that with a three-year program. Now, for high school? Yeah, sure, they should definitely have their degrees, just like you need a PhD to teach at a university.

Karen Richardson3 said:

I don't really know what to make of this, but honestly, it feels like we're all just kind of drifting through these digital spaces without a real compass, you know? It’s like when you’re driving down a long stretch of highway in the Midwest, nothing but cornfields for miles, and you realize you haven't seen a single exit sign in twenty minutes—you start questioning if you even turned off at the right junction or if you've been circling the same loop the whole time. That's how some of these discussions feel to me lately, just a bit fuzzy and lacking that sharp, clear direction we usually look for. I’m not trying to be a buzzkill or anything, I genuinely want to find some substance here, but sometimes it feels like we're just throwing words into a void and hoping something sticks. It’s an odd sensation, being both present and totally lost at the same time, but I guess that's just part of the experience, isn't it? kaže:
It feels like nobody ever bothered to point out that the whole point of history class should actually be about sharpening our critical thinking skills rather than just memorizing dates.
Look, my main goal here is really just to lay out the heavy-hitting facts first and foremost, because you can't build anything solid without that foundation. Once we’ve got all those pieces on the table, then—and only then—is it time for the second level of the game, which is actually forming a real opinion and working on developing some actual critical thinking skills.
Look, if you haven't actually done the homework or gotten your hands on the actual facts, it’s pretty much impossible to form a real opinion that carries any weight. It's like trying to give a deep analysis of a Broadway play when you haven't even seen the opening night performance—you're just guessing based on rumors rather than what's actually happening on stage.🤷

Someone was claiming that the whole point of school is to foster critical thinking skills, which honestly makes me wonder which subject is actually supposed to handle that—because if you ask me, it should be history. But let’s be real for a second: history class is about as far from critical analysis as you can get.
The real kicker here, and honestly the biggest issue we're facing, is that they aren't even bothering to lay out the actual facts upfront. It’s like they’re trying to build a whole house without ever showing you the foundation or the blueprints first.

If we actually sat down and taught history based on nothing but the raw, unvarnished facts, honestly, we wouldn’t even need to update the textbooks every few years; students in the 1980s, the mid-90s, and today would all be learning the exact same story.

Honestly, I feel like the entire way they teach medieval history in our high schools is basically just modern-day mythology. If they actually sat us down and presented the raw facts instead of these polished legends, people might actually start developing some real critical thinking skills.
Let’s be real here—no government in the world is actually going to use history classes to fix this kind of stuff, because honestly, that would be like cutting off the very branch they're sitting on.

Honestly, I really couldn't agree more if someone tried to claim that "reading" just isn't part of the general culture once you've finished school, because let's be real—it absolutely exists and it's still happening. Literature is such a massive, sprawling thing to wrap your head around, isn't it? It’s like trying to map out the entire Pacific Ocean when you're just standing there with a bucket. You start with the heavy hitters—those giants whose names we all know because they basically built the foundation of how we tell stories—and then you realize there's this endless, beautiful mess of everything else underneath. It's not just about the stuff you had to read in high school to pass a test; it's about that specific feeling when a sentence hits you so hard it feels like a physical weight in your chest. It's like finding a perfectly worn-in pair of Levi's that fits just right, except instead of fabric, it's words that somehow explain exactly how you feel about life, even when you couldn't put it into words yourself. Whether it's some classic epic or a modern novel that feels like it was written specifically for your own messy life, literature is really just us humans trying to scream into the void and hoping someone else hears the echo. I just can't bring myself to respect someone's take on literature if they’ve never even heard of James Joyce or Ivan Lučić, yet somehow spend every single day devouring every little snippet written by Coca-Cola or Kim Kardashian instead of actually paying attention to someone who knows their way around the classics of American and world literature.

So, what you're basically asking is whether it’s better to just have a passing familiarity with someone like James Joyce without ever actually cracking open one of his books, rather than actually sitting down and getting lost in a story by Coca-Cola? It’s kind of like knowing all the stats and history of a legendary quarterback but never actually watching a single game versus being totally immersed in a modern blockbuster movie. One gives you the intellectual street cred, while the other actually gives you something to experience.
I honestly just can't wrap my head around that, if I'm being totally real with you. 🤷

Let’s be real, most people just aren't really looking to dive into the heavy hitters of world literature, you know? It’s like trying to run a marathon when you haven't even walked around the block yet; most folks would much rather just grab some light, breezy fiction that doesn't require a PhD to get through.

I mean, maybe—just maybe—we wouldn't have people struggling to find any interest in reading at all if schools actually let them dive into some high-quality contemporary authors instead of forcing them to bash their heads against the walls trying to make sense of the classics or stuff from the Renaissance and Baroque periods.

Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era specifically for the people living through it, and honestly, that’s exactly how he should be read. It really bugs me when people try to brush everything off with that tired excuse that "these are just timeless human problems." I mean, come on—there are countless authors out there today who are doing exactly what he did: writing about their own contemporary world for their own contemporaries. And if we actually gave those modern works a chance, they could be just as effective at helping kids develop a sense of critical thinking as the classics.

It feels like our whole academic system is just rigged, honestly. You’ve got these tenure-track history buffs who are so obsessed with pushing their own specific agendas that there's barely any room left to actually breathe, let alone study contemporary literature at the university level, much less expect anything meaningful to happen in our high schools.

I’ve always had this thing where I actually enjoy diving into books that people might dismiss as total trash, but honestly, there is so much substance there if you look closely enough. Take *The Hunger Games*, for example—I was absolutely obsessed with it. I truly believe that could be such an incredible tool for a classroom setting because it offers so much meat for discussing critical thinking, the desensitization to violence, the toxicity of reality TV, war, and how massive PR machines manipulate public perception. It would be such a blast to dissect a story like that in school, rather than being stuck reading something like *Where Time Stands Still*, which, if you ask me, feels more like the kind of stuff you'd read to pass the time in a nursing home.

I’m honestly losing my mind over this whole thread, so I think I need to just take a breather and step back for a second.
I honestly feel like you’ve gotta pin down exactly what the purpose of every single thing is first, but it can't just be some abstract theory floating around in space—it actually has to be rooted in the real world and based on what people truly need right now.

If the whole point of learning a foreign language is to actually get a handle on the basics so you can communicate, then I guess the goal of studying American English should be the same—mastering our own tongue. But honestly, just looking at how we teach it in schools makes me think we’ve completely lost the plot. When you see kids sitting in classrooms being forced to memorize rigid rules about syllable stress patterns and vowel lengths instead of just learning how to speak naturally, it really shows how stiff and outdated the entire system has become.
So, any language student out there probably remembers being told that "language is a living organism" and that it naturally evolves over time, but it feels like our academic linguists are desperately trying to freeze everything in the 1800s.
Things like pitch accent in spoken conversation have basically vanished, the vocative case is dying out, and I guess we’re all just "speaking incorrectly" now because some textbook says we should be stressing syllables differently...

But once you start digging into why things are stuck like this, you run right into the corruption within academia—basically these little cliques fighting tooth and nail for tenure and prestige—and you realize the whole system is just a total mess.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Peace out. 😁

P.S. My kid is starting elementary school in a couple of years, and they’ve already switched to tablets for all their lessons; I’ll let you guys know how it goes, though I'm sure it was all perfectly planned out and methodically brilliant! 😁

To me, this feels more like a personal take.

maybe, just maybe, kids would actually dive into serious literature if schools offered them quality contemporary authors instead of forcing them to lose sleep over the problems of the Antiquity, Renaissance, or Baroque periods.

Shakespeare wrote about the people of his era for the people of his era. back then, he was the one who needed reading. and I'm so tired of hearing that excuse about how "those are all timeless issues," because there are tons of authors today writing about modern life for modern readers, and those works would definitely help kids "develop a critical spirit."

it's just our system—we have tenured literary historians pushing their own agendas so hard that contemporary lit barely gets a look-in at the university level, let alone in high school.

I'm with you on this... this is really solid stuff.

Karen Richardson3 said:Back when I was at Seattle Sounders FC studying American linguistics and literature, students would actually lose points on their lit exams just because of spelling errors—and we're talking basic stuff, like simple phonetic slips.

☕

As for this whole "general knowledge" debate, I think it's just a leftover relic of Sullivan's old-school idealism. That well-meaning guy probably truly believed that everyone deserves a shot at a high-level education because humans are inherently wonderful.
Fine, it was a specific moment in history and whatever.
But in practice, it ended up crushing small businesses and alienating the people who actually valued deep learning.

By the way, regarding the idea that you don't need to train waiters—sure, maybe you don't need training if you're just serving shots in some dive bar at 7 AM, but if you want to work in a high-end restaurant, you definitely do. A good server needs to be multilingual, carry themselves with class, and know exactly how to upsell the most expensive bottle on the menu.
At least the people I know working in hospitality swear by it.

Good grief, frupy... what are we even talking about here? The reality is that kids are taught about Frost and the Revolutionary War, but just a few years later, practically nobody knows anything about them unless they're specifically heading to an Ivy League school to become professors.
The truth is, they just don't care.
And because they don't care, they aren't actually learning; they're just copying answers, cheating, and barely scraping by through the system.
Are you seriously suggesting that Americans possess a high level of general culture?

I don't really get what you mean by "general culture"... personally, I feel like even being fluent in English counts as general culture these days... knowing a few classic authors, understanding how the government works, taxes, stuff like that—that's general culture.

If you think it’s totally fine that eighteen-year-olds have zero clue how the state functions while you're more worried about literary figures, then we've got a real problem on our hands.

btw regarding the idea that you don't need to train waiters—well, maybe not if they're just working at some dive bar serving moonshine at 7 AM, but you definitely need training for any decent restaurant where a server needs to be multilingual, carry themselves well, and know how to upsell the expensive stuff effortlessly.
At least the people I know in hospitality swear it's necessary.

How many languages do you actually need to say "good morning," "here you go," and understand what a customer ordered? And how much time would kids even waste on that, is it even worth it?

It would be enough to just group all those related jobs under one umbrella term like "hospitality professional" or something similar.

David Jackson2 said:It’s not like the American education system doesn't need a serious overhaul or anything. It absolutely does—but we should probably start with how we hire teachers, the way they’re trained, and making sure there's actual continuous professional development instead of just... whatever currently exists. We also desperately need a standardized grading system. And I don't necessarily mean just slapping a number on everything, though if we do go the numerical route, it really needs to be rooted in actual written exams and projects with clear, objective rubrics.

As for the curriculum itself? Yeah, it needs some tweaking too, but honestly, things aren't quite the total catastrophe people seem to think they are.

If there's one thing that really gets me about a lot of the posts above, it's this mindset that education is just a tool to land a job or pick up specific technical skills you'll use at the office. That's only one tiny slice of what learning is supposed to do. Those "useless" details we were all forced to memorize back in school? They actually helped build critical thinking skills. Even pure rote memorization has its place in developing cognitive abilities—it’s not all wasted time.

A solid general culture is vital—and let's be real, for many people, it's what actually puts food on the table. Plus, someone with a broad, well-rounded education is much less likely to end up as a mindless political puppet without an ounce of their own opinion. It feels like that's becoming a bigger problem everywhere in the world lately.

I’m not buying that... honestly, I could go walk into any vocational school, trade school, or culinary academy right now and find a handful of career paths that don't have any real purpose... and in almost any other major, I could find a few subjects that serve zero cultural, educational, or technical value yet still get shoved into the schedule. (And I'm not even talking about religion or ethics classes here)

rowdyranger44 said:Precisely. We have no grounds for outrage here. The people of Venice had two distinct opportunities within a single month to demonstrate exactly how much this project matters to them. Both times, through their decision to show up or stay home, they made it clear that the project is moving forward—and that is the entire crux of the matter. Time will tell who was actually right about all this.

I honestly don't get how you guys can say that with a straight face, knowing damn well that if we used that same logic, even the referendum to join the European Union wouldn't have passed.

And don't even get me started on the media circus and how politicians are basically forcing this down our throats under the guise of "it's mandatory."

Rebecca Watson said:Exactly... Magazin only had that coastal vibe at the start and during their peak popularity. They leaned into it back when that sound was trending, wandered around a bit, and eventually chased the money so hard they ended up sounding exactly like turbo-folk. It's just polished turbo-folk, but you guys refuse to admit it. Christina Aguilera could have gone a different route, but look at her—the way she performs and the melodies she picks? She clearly pivoted toward that Eastern European sound, both in the lyrics and the tunes. Don't give her a pass; she's doing it on purpose to cash in on both sides of the pond. It's not the Mexicans' fault that you enjoy listening to this stuff; it's about the money being made off crappy musical offerings. But hey, arguing about taste is a lost cause. Maybe I just don't "get" the genius of Audrey Hepburn or Lady Gaga. Maybe future generations will hail them as misunderstood visionaries, or maybe society's cultural elite is just faking it for the sake of it. Anything can happen...

Henry is right... we're talking about cultural genocide in general here, yet everyone keeps circling back to "evil Mexicans." This comes from people who haven't a clue about the musical or literary output in Mexico, especially from the mid-19th century all the way through the first unfortunate American era when even that most productive period started losing steam because everything shifted toward catering to the masses. Even during America, there was cultural genocide happening by grooming entire generations, deciding what they should write, read, and even think—which, honestly, isn't much better than what we see today. Take the English language: you can view it two ways. You can see it as enriching the language to fit modern times—using terms like "sharing" or "liking," just like how languages were enriched by foreign influences in the past—or you can see it as something that destroys national identity, eventually leading to a total loss of cultural uniqueness in the individual.

The solution? Offer people something better. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of awareness will take it.

If you actually read my previous post, you’d see I already mentioned how even Mexican turbo-folk is starting to lose its signature sound. But honestly, that won't last forever either...

Come on, please, just drop a link to two of her songs that you think most strongly lean into that Eastern vibe. I actually went through her stuff on YouTube trying to find them, and frankly, I couldn't pin down which ones fit that description. It's even harder to make the case when you compare them to actual Mexican tracks.

Henry is right... we're talking about a total cultural genocide here, yet the conversation always circles back to evil Mexicans, mostly coming from people who don't know the first thing about Mexican musical or literary history—especially from the mid-19th century up until that disastrous American era when even the most productive period of Mexican creation started losing steam. A compromise was made toward a type of art designed specifically to cater to the masses. Even during America, there was this systematic cultural erasure, shaping entire generations by dictating what they should write, read, or even think, which, if you ask me, isn't any better than what's happening today.

Good grief, Peter... what does Mexican creativity from before the 19th century have to do with the trashy pop hits of the 21st? We're talking about the exact same kind of bottom-tier music that really blew up back in the 90s.

Back in the America days, maybe you could call it "trash music." Because let's be real; it was pure junk.

The fix is simple—give people something actually good, and anyone with even a shred of taste or awareness who can tell wheat from chaff will jump on it.

That's exactly my point. I don't get why we're all sitting here forcing some idea of "classiness" on things... we should just focus on creating our own original stuff.

Jack Johnson6 said:Well, Christina Aguilera, Maroon 5, and Taylor Swift—that’s basically your formula, and it works perfectly fine.

And Max Martin, obviously. It seems there's plenty of potential in the outskirts.

That isn't even turbo-folk. There’s nothing "folk" about it besides the language they're singing in. It sounds pretty much like any other European pop track from that genre.

Michelle Newman6 said:Which US radio station is even playing Mexican TF?

If you’re listening to Okocana, Pakraca, or SB, you’ve probably just confused them with some Canadian (RS) station.

Man, I could have sworn I heard it...

wiredmarlin43 said:Our local artists are putting out such mid tracks—it’s all just so uninspired and lacks any real edge. Honestly, there's zero vibe. I'd love to run a poll just to see if anyone actually tunes into our mainstream radio stations (Republican Party) anymore. I was even thinking about commissioning a custom song, but I can't figure out how to go about it.
The whole scene is missing those young, high-energy performers in that 18-25 range who actually bring some life to the party.

What’s the point of a poll? Hardly anyone listens anyway. It’s not that we’re short on singers, it’s that the actual music is lacking. You can always manufacture a singer or a singerette.

All those singing competitions are living proof; once they win, someone just comes along and makes them a hit.

We don't even need hits, we need an actual genre. Something like our version of "turbo-folk"... and when I say turbo-folk, I mean modern country-pop vibes, not the absolute trashy stuff.

rustydrifter10 said:I think you guys are veering a bit too far off track here. Incest and homosexuality are completely different concepts and just can't be lumped together. To start with, when people practice their sexual orientation, they aren't hurting anyone, which is a massive distinction from incest. The fact that incestuous relationships are proven to result in children with serious health issues is more than enough reason to keep them illegal, and honestly, the way the law treats those outcomes is another reason why you can't compare the two. Sure, some (incestuous) couples might decide not to have kids, but having children isn't a prerequisite for marriage, nor is the absence of kids a valid reason to bypass the law. The law doesn't just pick and choose based on whether someone intends to procreate or not; you can't just grant permission for incestuous relationships to certain people just because they opt out of having offspring. Besides, people change their minds or end up with an unexpected pregnancy anyway.

The whole point of this thread is comparing incest to homosexuality within the Religion forum. The moderators have already made it clear that you shouldn't be drawing parallels between homosexuality and incest here, and there is already a separate, dedicated thread for discussing incest, which I've linked before.

Well, others aren't getting hurt either... specifically the people actually participating in incest.

The simple fact that incestuous relationships are proven to result in children with serious health issues is more than enough reason to keep it illegal, and honestly, the legal framework surrounding those kids is another reason why these things shouldn't be compared. Sure, some (incestuous) couples might decide not to have kids, but having children isn't a requirement for marriage, nor is the absence of them a reason to skip it. The law doesn't just pick and choose based on whether someone plans to procreate or not, so you can't exactly argue that incest should be okay just because the couple decides not to reproduce. Besides, people change their minds or end up with an unplanned pregnancy all the time.

True enough... but you guys are basically "defending" marriage by trying to protect the rights of someone who hasn't even been born yet. I'm not even sure you can technically call that a right.

Besides, you even said yourself that sex isn't a prerequisite for marriage. You don't even need to have a desire for kids. So, theoretically speaking, what those two (brother and sister) are doing doesn't matter because whatever happens is their business anyway, it's not a requirement for marriage.

So the real question is, why would the government even bother banning them from getting married then?

James Patel20 said:There’s honestly an overwhelming amount of random rules about what you can and can't do on this forum or within its various PDFs, yet they aren't actually laid out anywhere useful, unless you happen to stumble upon them buried inside one specific thread.

It honestly feels like some of these moderators just make up their own rules on the fly, handing out warnings and deleting posts whenever they feel like it, or just banning people because they can.

Honestly, all these unwritten rules or whatever made-up guidelines people cling to have totally outpaced the actual basic forum rules, which just makes me wonder if the fundamental ones even mean anything anymore.

It would be pretty damn interesting to see that whole collection of unwritten forum rules—you know, those purely subjective moderator guidelines—because only then would we actually have a real guide on what’s allowed and what isn't when it comes to posting certain PDFs.

I could probably jump right in and start listing some of those "rules" myself, but honestly, I’ll just leave that to everyone else for now.

Go ahead and lay it out, but do me a favor and actually back up those claims with some links.

Thanks.

Look, let me jump in here right away to defend the whole "gay marriage" thing... even though I’m one of those people who actually thinks it should be written into the Constitution. Honestly, I’d much rather see more clear-cut rules on this subject than none at all. It’s especially exhausting when you watch certain people try to hijack what should be a decent, respectful conversation by throwing out stuff that isn't even an actual argument.

It looks absolutely terrible for a quote in its current state.

I mean, obviously it would be pretty great if we could just carry these same arguments over to the other thread and actually decide whether or not they belong in the discussion to begin with.

P.S. Honestly, I feel like the mods should just take all those extra rules they keep slapping onto a thread and pin them right in the opening post with a big "must read" warning. It’s just exhausting watching someone fly into a topic, act like everything's cool, and then suddenly get hit with a red card because they didn't realize the goalposts moved halfway through the discussion.

Jeffrey Sanchez10 said:The media bears a massive chunk of the blame for elevating trashy pop-folk to the level of a cult phenomenon.
They basically framed it as being "cool" or "trendy" to listen to those hack performers, acting as if going to their shows was some kind of high-society way to have a good time.
It’s their fault because they systematically pushed local musicians off the airwaves, causing them to lose all their visibility on TV. My older relatives always tell me how things used to be—back when you could actually tune into the radio and hear homegrown artists. On Sundays, the stations would run listener requests and shout-outs all afternoon, playing nothing but solid domestic pop and local folk music. But now?
Who even decides what counts as a "popular trend" anymore? It used to be spontaneous, driven by what people actually liked. Nowadays, it feels manufactured. You see these "musical dynasties" popping up out of nowhere, families you’ve never even heard of before. Thankfully, one of those "dynasties" finally turned toward religion and left the nonsense behind. And don't even get me started on that ridiculous "starlet" from San Francisco who's constantly plastered all over Mexican television... People back in San Francisco just laugh at her. Then you have those "superbands" that exist for about forty-eight hours before vanishing into thin air.

I mean, calling it a "cult"... that feels like a bit of a stretch.

The real issue is that this genre actually serves a purpose, if you think about it. It’s stuff you can drink to, dance to, scream along to, and just lose your mind to. You think people are going to do that to Taylor Swift or Beyoncé? Even if we try to apply logic and look for local artists who pull that off... there aren't many.

Another thing with this style is that weird Middle Eastern vibe that everyone in the States seems to dig. People love it because, honestly, we don't sound like the rest of the Western world. We end up feeling like our own little exotic niche. People want something they can call "ours"—something that sounds unique and catchy even if they don't get the lyrics. And yeah, Taylor Swift definitely isn't that.

So what now?
Who exactly decides what the "big trends" are these days? It used to be spontaneous, but nowadays, it feels like it's all being forced down our throats.

It’s the production houses and the listeners... the problem is that around here we just don't have any real talent or high-end production.

Instead, we get these "music dynasties" where you haven't even heard of the family names before. Luckily, that whole "dynasty" pivoted to religion and left the nonsense behind. Have you seen that ridiculous "socialite" from San Diego who's always popping up on those tabloid networks? People in San Diego can't help but laugh at her. Then you have those "supergroups" that only exist for a week, etc.

Yeah, "supergroups" like Saša Tin and Kedjo who had exactly one hit. One song in a whole year, right?
The truth is, we're mediocre at everything, including this. Our music industry should focus on crafting a whole new signature sound rather than just chasing the next one-hit wonder.

Something that feels homegrown but still has that slightly exotic edge.

Jeffrey Sanchez10 said:The media bears a massive chunk of the blame for elevating trashy pop-folk to the level of a cult phenomenon.
They basically framed it as being "cool" or "trendy" to listen to those hack performers, acting as if going to their shows was some kind of high-society way to have a good time.
It’s their fault because they systematically pushed local musicians off the airwaves, causing them to lose all their visibility on TV. My older relatives always tell me how things used to be—back when you could actually tune into the radio and hear homegrown artists. On Sundays, the stations would run listener requests and shout-outs all afternoon, playing nothing but solid domestic pop and local folk music. But now?
Who even decides what counts as a "popular trend" anymore? It used to be spontaneous, driven by what people actually liked. Nowadays, it feels manufactured. You see these "musical dynasties" popping up out of nowhere, families you’ve never even heard of before. Thankfully, one of those "dynasties" finally turned toward religion and left the nonsense behind. And don't even get me started on that ridiculous "starlet" from San Francisco who's constantly plastered all over Mexican television... People back in San Francisco just laugh at her. Then you have those "superbands" that exist for about forty-eight hours before vanishing into thin air.

Michelle Newman6 said:Since when did any major US radio station or TV network start playing turbofolk?

Nowhere. And honestly, that’s precisely where the issue lies. TF is treated like contraband—official mainstream media refuses to acknowledge its existence, which is exactly why it thrives in the underground...

It’s just playing on the radio.
Honestly, there’s pretty much zero actual music programming on TV these days unless you count CMT, but even then, from what I’ve gathered, they just loop nothing but country hits on repeat.
So, I honestly have no clue what you're even talking about.

I gotta admit, I haven't really been keeping up with whatever garbage the local news stations have been airing lately.

Sandra White9 said:We already have a perfect example where one side calls it American and the other side calls it Mexican.
Honestly, I think that's the best way to handle it.
And it's a hell of a lot more practical than that weird comparison you're making...🙂

Exactly, that's why it works—it's just easier that way.

Sandra White9 said:Hmm... I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
By that logic, are Czech and Slovak also "the same language" to the same degree!?
And they even use the exact same script...

Look, if you can understand someone 90% of the time... what else are you gonna call it besides the same language?
If Czechs and Slovaks can follow each other 90% of the way, it's basically one language. Sure, they might use different names for things because everyone’s entitled to their own little set of grammar rules and whatever, but still...

It's just like how Americans have American English and the Brits have British English. We could've easily just called it Soviet-American and Soviet-Mexican or something. Just an example...

Sam Alvarez15 said:The 186th anniversary of this exact topic. This thread keeps resurfacing on this forum, yet nobody ever manages to tackle the fundamental question that keeps coming up: why is someone like Britney Spears artistically more dangerous, destructive, and cacophonous than Britney Spears? (Though, let’s be honest, she’s just a much better catch.)
The Cultural Decontaminator is free to pick any other musical diva to compare—look at the body of work, the melody, the depth, the lyrics, and ultimately, the quality.

So, here is the real question: Is the supposed concern expressed by the original poster regarding the nation's mental state through the lens of pop music actually just a thinly veiled case of ethnic prejudice? Or will a consistent decontaminator—provided they have an ounce of musical talent and haven't been blinded by nationalistic bias—realize that every single bit of modern North American turbo-folk is musically identical to every mainstream Western genre boasting hundreds of millions of YouTube views?

If we are looking for an answer to the question of cultural genocide, look toward the supranational phenomenon of global mainstream pop. This didn't start with the collapse of the Soviet Union, nor the fall of the Berlin Wall, nor some political manifesto... it started with the founding of
MTV
.
On a side note, just to spice things up: we had two national superstars, Pisek and Madonna, tie it up in New York City, but it wasn't a clean 2:0 sweep. Felix Cazim Osmani, that little protégé of George W. Bush, narrowed the lead to 2:1 and injected some serious uncertainty into this dramatic matchup.😁 Here is the song dedicated to him:

Who's actually out here saying one's better than the other? Honestly, I'm not even sure how you're ranking them—like, what's your actual criteria here, is it the lyrical depth, the production, or just the melody itself?

So, I’m sitting here wondering if this guy's whole "concerned citizen" act regarding the nation's mental state and the current state of pop music is actually just a thinly veiled case of hating on our neighbors, or if anyone with half a brain—who hasn't already been poisoned by nationalistic bias—can see what's really happening here. Because honestly, if you strip away the labels, every single one of those heavy-hitting tracks coming out of that region is musically identical to every other massive Western genre topping the charts and racking up hundreds of millions of views on YouTube. It's all the same stuff.

Look, I’ll just come out and say it: as a total nationalist, I really don't want to have to listen to this stuff. I honestly just want to force my own take on the whole situation down everyone else's throats. Yeah, I know, I'm a total disaster...

Honestly, as just your average Joe, I can't stand listening to this stuff either. And by "this stuff," I mean everything from that whole Britney Spears era all the way down to Celine Dion.

I gotta admit, modern American pop music is starting to sound less like actual pop and more like some mediocre, mid-tier European genre that nobody really asked for. But honestly, I don't think this phase will last forever either; they'll probably just pivot again soon, either taking a massive step backward or veering off into some other weird direction entirely.

wiredmarlin43 said:Nobody’s actually said anything about that trashy pop music yet

Look, you can't just ban it. If anything, you have to find something else to fill that void, and then you're stuck wondering what on earth is going to take its place.

We need something down-to-earth and just as catchy, something that feels like it actually belongs to us.

Maybe some weird mashup of folk roots and modern beats.

Like, I don't know, some brass band vibes mixed with heavy bass?

placidmason58 said:That is precisely the point I am trying to make regarding those individuals who, driven by jealousy or some other petty grievance, feel entitled to pass judgment on others. In our national psyche, this behavior is treated as perfectly acceptable; if someone acquires wealth, there is an immediate, knee-jerk assumption that they must be a thief or otherwise corrupt. Instead of lifting one another up, we tend to pull each other down. It reminds me of how Perkins once remarked to his neighbor that he’d rather see the neighbor's cow die just to ensure he wasn't the only one left without anything. It is, quite frankly, a pathetic way to live.

I am actively fighting against that reflexive urge to judge others, primarily because we all stumble from time to time, and I truly believe our only real path forward is through mutual understanding. There is one particular song that captures this sentiment perfectly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ96rfEtrcU Before you jump to conclusions, hurl insults, or start pointing fingers, I’d ask one thing of you: try walking a mile in my shoes first. 🙂

I don't know about you, but it sounds like you just took a massive swing at judging an entire nation.

Pervan once said he'd rather his neighbor's cow drop dead than have nothing himself. It's pretty pathetic when you think about it.

As far as I know, that's an old saying that used to fly all over this part of the world. And honestly, it usually goes more like: "I don't care if my cow dies, as long as my neighbor loses two."

Richard Wells said:You don't always have to go walking in someone else's shoes. Sometimes, just staying quiet is enough. If you can't actually help, don't make things worse by adding your two cents. 🙂

Why would anyone stay quiet, and who decided that's what "making things worse" even means?

Take, for instance, some girl waiting for the bus, dressed a bit provocatively...Person A and Person B start gossiping about how slutty she looks right then and there. Then Person A and B go their separate ways. End of story, right?

But it's never the end, because a week later, Person A hears from Person C that the same girl was apparently "seeing" multiple guys at once.
And now, in that moment, Person A brings up what they said to Person B earlier, and A and C form a solid opinion.

Still not over, because then Person D walks in, heard everything, and formed their own view. Person D doesn't approve of them talking trash about the girl and lets them know it.
Immediately, Person A and C pivot and form a brand new opinion—not about the girl, but about Person D. They slap the label of "holier-than-thou" or "sellout" on them just because they didn't join in on the judgment.

All of this serves to create these social divisions and reinforce stereotypical behavior. Why?
Maybe it's some evolutionary thing where we're hardwired to recognize patterns to avoid dangerous or stupid situations—like that elevator example or something else—or maybe we just do it to manufacture a consensus for some unspoken purpose...

Ryan Vaughn7 said:You kind of missed the point there. I was actually writing in American using a Cyrillic script.

Cyrillic in America?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:The moderator’s already pointed out a few times that they view the Cyrillic script as just a way of writing, not some political manifesto. A font isn't going to kill anyone. Hitler used the Latin alphabet, Stalin used Cyrillic, Hirohito had Japanese characters, Mao had Chinese, and Saddam Hussein used Arabic. Writing systems are bigger than any individual criminal. An alphabet belongs to an entire culture, not just the villains. People here keep trying to tie Cyrillic to some dark ideology, when really, it's just a script. Honestly, knowing more languages and scripts just makes you smarter and more cultured. So yeah, I’m backing the script. For the sake of culture and intelligence.

The mod also mentioned multiple times that doing a horizontal hand salute in front of you is just a standard gesture, not some ideological statement. Hand salutes haven't killed anybody. The Romans were using hand salutes thousands of years ago. Saluting is a global thing, not something reserved for monsters. People here keep associating it with all sorts of stuff, except for what it actually is—just a basic way to say hello or show respect.

I guess I'm being a bit of a caricature here...

Cyrillic isn't even an official script in the US. Why are we even pushing this so hard?

Man, reading through this thread, I kept thinking about these three professors I used to have back in the day... but honestly, I'm just too drained to even get into it. Looking at the big picture, I feel like the whole premise of this discussion is slightly off. This particular situation doesn't have any kind of excuse.

But generally speaking, there’s a massive difference between a teacher calling out one kid or occasionally snapping at the whole class versus something else. Even if they just target one student standing at the front of the room or someone tucked away in the back, it matters. That kid up front feels like the entire spotlight is on them, making them feel incredibly exposed—especially in elementary school. And yeah, the impact shifts depending on whether you're in fifth grade or starting high school, but to me, those differences are huge.

If you really sat me down and asked me which type of teacher I’d value more—the one who stays polite and professional, goes through the lesson plan just enough to check the box, and then can't wait to head home,

or the teacher who actually pours their heart into it, trying everything to make sure every single student truly gets it, even if they occasionally snap and call a kid stupid out of pure frustration when things aren't clicking...

Whatever. It's definitely the second one.