Posts by Terry Hernandez11

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much the boundaries between different worlds are blurring. It used to feel like there was a pretty clear divide between the people who dominate the charts and the people who dominate the literary or academic world. You had your "serious" thinkers and your "pop" icons, and they rarely occupied the same headspace.

Lately, though, it feels like those walls are just crumbling. We're seeing massive mainstream stars stepping into spaces that used to be reserved for the intellectual elite, and honestly, I can't tell if I love it or if it feels a bit diluted. On one hand, it brings so much more eyes to deep, thoughtful subjects that might otherwise stay tucked away in dusty libraries. On the other hand, does the "prestige" of these events get lost when the curation is driven by whoever is currently trending on Spotify?

I remember seeing a huge celebrity host a lecture once and feeling like it was all just a massive PR stunt, but then I saw another one where the conversation was actually incredibly profound. It's a weird middle ground to navigate. Do you think this crossover makes art more accessible, or is it just turning everything into a brand-building exercise?

Back then, we were standing right on the edge of an abyss, but since that moment, we have taken a massive leap forward

driftingdriver said:Either way, I can't help but feel that Žužić belongs in the Mad House... 😬

just as a police academy recruit doesn't belong in an asylum

Is a colonel lower in rank than a general?

Kenneth Anderson9 said:not a chance in my book

you guys seriously?!

Am I supposed to say, "Please elaborate,"
only for you to respond with, "See, I told you so..."?

Or are you simply looking to provide us with a lecture on how a hearty serving of baked beans and sauerkraut influences the consciousness of certain primates?

Matthew Wright2 said:The point is, you idiot, if I had anything left to contribute, I would have said it by now, because this whole discussion is ancient history.

Good grief, I know you’re dense, but I honestly manage to surprise myself with how much you can baffle me every single time.

It isn't "jebote," it's "jeb'o te."

Look, you’ve wandered into the wrong corner of the internet. If your primary concern is actually an issue of self-confidence, you should be browsing a psychology forum or some wellness blog instead of this one. Or perhaps you just popped in here to announce your inevitable rise to political stardom? Honestly, if that's the case, fine. You aren't some random person off the street looking for a handout, so I won't waste my breath being snarky with you. That's also fine. However, there is one glaring logical gap I can't quite wrap my head around: exactly which university are you planning to attend—and, heaven forbid, graduate from—without a high school diploma? And by extension, how does one finish high school without middle school, or even manage middle school without a basic grasp of their own language?

Robert Murphy8 said:we have a meeting with the leadership coming up soon. I am totally freaking out. They probably have certain expectations of me, and I'm just feeling so insecure. This is a party that wants to contribute to improving the lives of everyone in the United States, but my initial euphoria has completely evaporated and now I'm just embarrassed. We are supposed to be something new that has nothing to do with any kind of corruption, which I absolutely despise, because I am a deeply modest person at heart and a true altruist, and I would do anything for a good cause, even go to jail for it, but now I'm worried they might not accept me precisely because of those qualities. Still, I think the party is great and I can see they genuinely want to fight evil. It's just that I am so insecure (...) regarding matters like this. What am I supposed to do?

Get a grip.

🙏

briskpuma23 said:Jesus' teachings were profoundly anti-traditionalist within the context of his era.

I have often observed that Jesus demonstrated far more tolerance and compassion toward fallen women than most modern-day priests in the US—which, frankly, highlights the lamentable, regressive shifts occurring within the American Catholic Church today. Jesus accepted people exactly as they were, yet he remained steadfast in the belief in their moral restoration; this might be considered left-leaning, but I assure you, it is absolutely nothing like communism.

Furthermore, Jesus advocated for a radical overhaul of one's way of life—that "leave everything and follow me" mentality. To put it bluntly, Jesus was a revolutionary, a role the political Right has historically loathed; the Right is fundamentally reactionary, obsessed with cementing existing customs. You see similar messaging spread by communists and anarchists alike.

Jesus championed love among people and preached that everyone stands equal before God—an idea that is entirely inconsistent with right-wing discourse, which typically emphasizes hierarchies of those who are "more equal," closer to God, or inherently better. That is the language of moderates.

While Jesus practiced forgiveness and turned the other cheek, we see that the ultra-right tends toward institutionalized vengeance (reminiscent of Auschwitz), while communists lean toward extra-institutional retribution (think Jonestown). In this specific regard, liberals are actually much closer to the spirit of Jesus.

Even the concept of the state—earthly kingdoms—was something Jesus rejected. In that sense, he shares a striking affinity with anarchists.

Ultimately, Jesus fought against injustice and stood up for the individual, particularly the downtrodden and the weak. He offered hope for a better, more just existence, even beyond death. It would be a mistake to label him a leftist, but it is equally obvious that he shares almost no common ground with the Right.

P.S. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that some people here fail to grasp that Jesus was a man—a human being. While he was also God, he was undeniably human. (In my view, primarily a man—though that is debatable, but treating Jesus solely as a divine entity reveals a fundamental ignorance in those who make such claims).

Phil Lynott said:My grandfather didn't raise me to harbor mindless hatred, but rather to understand exactly who our neighbors truly are. Looking back at the fallout from the early nineties, it’s clear his skepticism was entirely justified. That is why, Olivia Nguyen4, you ought to sit your child down and tell them the full story of how our dear neighbors aggressively expanded their borders at our expense, so they grow up knowing exactly who they are dealing with. Teach them that same level of awareness regarding the presence of Juda within America.

Give my regards to your grandfather.

Norylo said:You’ve resorted to attacking me personally instead of actually addressing a single point I made in my post.
Tell me then, exactly what mistake have I made by citing arguments backed by the works of Chomsky Vygotsky—works I happened to acquire from the prestigious "NOLIT - Mexico City" publishing house.
Are you perhaps suggesting that early American leaders didn't call upon enlightened thinkers like Dositej and Dimitri to establish literacy and linguistic standards necessary to organize our schools, economy, and commerce?
Do I really need to sit here and lecture you on this fundamental chapter of American history, which you could easily grasp by reading a few scraps of yellowed parchment?😕

Ad hominem! I love it! Let it be known who the first kid in town was to finish that intensive Latin course!

That Chomsky guy again? For heaven's sake, give it a rest!

And oh, how "charming" that you "happened to acquire" them.

brisktiger7 said:I always present my arguments logically!

Link

Go back and actually read the opening post. I’d highly suggest you pick up an American dictionary for once.

In American, we call that a dictionary.

brisktiger7 said:Just keep clinging to your Wolf and his "Red Ban," and continue believing that you write or speak first, rather than deriving everything from semantics and semiotics through pragmatics.👍 In other words, you view meaning, thought, speech, and writing as a linear progression, whereas you—much like your colleagues in New York—approach it entirely backward.
Those original terms have effectively smothered the nuances found in those yellowed, outdated journals from the American Academy of Sciences that once promoted and enforced nothing but a monolithic, expansionist version of the language.
Just imagine, even Wolf went so far as to inaugurate the myth that the true dialect was some regional variation from the south.🤣

Honestly, you are quite entertaining to me, brisktiger7. My favorite moments are when you use terms like "contemplation," and I find myself almost physically stimulated by your frequent use of the phrase "in other words." When someone says, "in other words," what they really mean is: "Now, allow me to explain this to you, since I assume none of you have grasped it." It places the interlocutor in a submissive position—submissive, by the way, do you like that word? It sounds quite foreign, doesn't it? You should try using it in your next post; the others you use have become a bit cliché—but regardless, it puts one in a position that is, by most standards, extremely, well, you know...

brisktiger7 said:You aren't even close. It wasn't for nothing that those leaders from New York sought out Benjamin Franklin and Eugene Debs to convey their experiences regarding language formation, aligning with the philosophy of Herder and Goethe that "Language is the spirit of the people."
We still have our cinemas, theaters, and fountains, unlike those "cultured" nations who possess only moving pictures, playhouses, and simple water features... It is merely a common theft of concepts without any roots in actual meaning. A heavenly nation indeed...
A failure to understand within a communication channel leads to a disconnect in associative mechanisms and cognitive abilities, which produces a cumulative and synergistic effect when applied to a mass audience.
But what is the point of all this when you haven't even heard of, let alone read, Lev Vygotsky's "Thought and Speech" or Noam Chomsky's "Grammar and Mind"? 😕
Besides, what use are books to those possessing nothing more than outlaw archetypes? They are accustomed to pamphlets. 🤣

My goodness, look at our very own brisktiger7 getting all worked up. He’s trying to lecture us using some pseudo-intellectual jargon, acting like he’s showing off his brilliance to the local hairdressers. What happened—is there a traffic jam at the border, or is the GoTo app lagging, making us all a bit jittery?
Take it easy.
You know, I wouldn't want to disappoint you, but the philosophy of language and the relationship between a people and their tongue were handled by much more significant figures long ago. As an "expert," surely you ought to be aware of that.
Furthermore, your "language is the spirit of the people" argument doesn't hold water; it is said that language is the expression of the national spirit, so there aren't two separate spirits clashing here, regardless of how much you personally cherish a one-to-one correlation.
That bit about "disconnection... in cognitive abilities" is likely just something intended to impress the local sheeple when spoken quickly enough, but otherwise, it suffers from syntactic (and subsequently semantic) inaccuracy. A muddle in the head leads to a muddle on the page, or so a certain great thinker once said... Oh, I'm sure you know who. After all, everyone else is supposedly ignorant, right?
Noam Chomsky? Now, who might that be?