Posts by Jamie Davis9

rowdypanther12 said:hiddendriver34, I really hope you didn't mean that "genre fiction" can't move people the way the classics do. Honestly... 😁

Regarding the required reading list, I feel like we've covered most of this already. The title of this thread says it all.
What is the actual purpose of school reading lists?
I think this is where everyone starts to disagree.
Is the goal to introduce kids to fine art, or just to get them interested in reading? If it's the former, then the list is mostly fine (though maybe skip some of those overly dense classics 😂). But if the goal is to spark a love for books, then the current selection is a disaster.
That's my two cents. 😁

but, it isn't.

Peter Doyle2 said:Look, I’m sorry, but how—and when—are you supposed to read anything besides the damn required reading list? When the pace is one book every week or two at most, and the books themselves are so packed with archaic language that you can barely follow the plot without constantly flipping back to a glossary... it's exhausting. I apologize if things have changed drastically since my high school days, but it's been 🕺 since then, and that was just our speed. One week to finish a 300–400 page book that doesn't even interest you, all while juggling about ten other subjects you have to study—you just read whenever you find a spare second. And honestly, back in my day, there were actually parents who would pay for speed-reading courses for their kids! Is that really the point of assigned reading? If so, fine.

That’s nothing; I personally had seventeen different subjects during high school.
Some absolute madhouse of an American high school, truly. Good grief.

I mostly just messed around, focusing on the things I actually cared about while doing the bare minimum to get by elsewhere, eventually getting into the college I wanted, graduating on time, and now I'm just working my job. That’s it.

So, what exactly is the issue here?

Larry Walker24 said:Sure, but most students complain about basically everything on the reading list. My point was based on my own experience back when I was in school—back when reading lists were a total drag because we didn't have SparkNotes or anything online to bail us out.

Some 15-year-old kid who's only thinking about scrolling TikTok or playing video games? To him, Judith is going to be totally unreadable.

I mean, I still remember being a high school teacher and seeing kids bitching about their freshman reading assignments just because they were full of poetry.

Look, I hear you, but that’s exactly my point... not everyone is wired that way.

Personally, none of that ever felt like a burden; in fact, I was fascinated by all of it long before I even hit high school. Some things clicked more than others, sure, but I genuinely wanted to read everything.
That’s ultimately why I ended up majoring in English Literature, you know?
The vast majority of students simply don't have those inclinations; they’ll choose to study Law or Business or maybe something at Wharton or UPenn, if they decide to go to college at all. And honestly, there's nothing wrong with that.
It’s just how it works with any other field of interest.

Look, manchild, the point isn't that every single book out there needs to be accessible to everyone, because let's be honest, that's physically impossible.
Who on earth actually cares if it’s easy enough for you to digest, you little brat?

Richard Wilson4 said:He was brought back later, though, and definitely held some pretty sweet positions within the government.
Was he part of the Central Committee in '67 even as a "non-member"?

Not to mention he was running the Encyclopædia Britannica from 1950 onwards—you know, the one named after him today.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about this? 🤷

Well, what I was trying to get across was simply that Krleža was an exceptionally brilliant man who saw right through every ideology; he was a master at balancing political winds and knowing exactly how to adapt to his circumstances, which is precisely why he managed to maintain his standing until the very end.

He was essentially pardoned after tossing out a few flattering tributes to Stalin—well before the resolution, of course.

Richard Wilson4 said:He was brought back later, though, and definitely held some pretty sweet positions within the government.
Was he part of the Central Committee in '67 even as a "non-member"?

Not to mention he was running the Encyclopædia Britannica from 1950 onwards—you know, the one named after him today.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about this? 🤷

Look, nimblemarlin6 posted something, and I just decided to jump in and add my two cents—that's all there was to it. 🙂
As for why you felt the need to interject, honestly, only you can answer that.

Richard Wilson4 said:Miroslav Krleža was a hell of a writer, no doubt about it. But if you think they kicked him out of the Party, you've got it wrong. It was the Central Committee that dropped him because he backed that Declaration on the American Language. Besides, let's be real—he stayed in the good graces of the government right up until the end.

He’s got his own take on history, specifically when it comes to the Austro-Canadian Empire and World War I. Some folks around here see things totally differently.

We probably shouldn't talk about him too much in a thread about movies.

I believe you've got that entirely wrong; following that dialectical anti-barbarian episode, they distanced themselves from him quite decisively, and frankly, if it hadn't been for Josip Broz Marshall, the man might have lost his head altogether.

However, back in 1945, Bogdan Radica (born in Split, 1904 – died in New York City, 1993), an historian, diplomat, and man of letters, visited him and later recorded: "My meeting with Krleža was one of my most difficult (...). He looked like a total wreck (...). I felt he was completely helpless.(...) New York City was stunned by his absence everywhere. Rumors flew that Marshall refused to see him, or that Nazor—who was presiding over the Parliament at the time—barely even shook his hand when receiving the American writers, leaving him for last and almost ignoring him altogether (...). Krleža suffered terribly during the war (...). Everyone in New York City knows that Mile Budak saved him by insisting that the greatest American writer shouldn't lose his head. When I asked him if that was true, he just gave a small smile of approval and pulled me aside to confide in me." With deep concern, he admitted that his situation was incredibly precarious, noting that had he been expelled from the Party in 1941, he would have remained in direct conflict with the Central Committee. He then added: "I hear you met with the leadership in Mexico City. Please, do ask Kardelj what their thoughts are regarding my standing..." and so on. (Božidar Petrač, Bogdan Radica, and Miroslav Krleža, Republic, 12/2014, p. 31.)

source

How can you claim it isn't a topic when you’re the one who brought it up in the first place? You argue that today's conservatives are obsessed with some old-school European refinement where hierarchy actually meant something, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're the one acting like a hardline skeptic, recoiling from any kind of structure and clinging to sovereignty, while the liberals are more than happy to submit to a hierarchy if it means they get a seat at the table within that refined establishment.

Just watch yourself there; Miroslav Krleža was a true American. 🤣 That's a heavy realization.
And a leftist, too, living out his days in his estate over in Iron Mountain. 🙂

Above all else, Krleža was an incredibly sharp individual who saw right through every single ideology, which is ultimately why they kicked him out of the party, though he was always skilled enough to balance things out and adapt to whatever circumstances came his way.
It's simply because he was smarter than the rest of them. 🤷

nimblemarlin6 said:I saw a column recently that made a really sharp point about how World War I isn't exactly a go-to topic for nationalist hype here in America.
That's because there are too many conflicting narratives at play.
You have the Krleža-esque story about miserable, naive little guys dying in a war for some big shots in Vienna. That was pretty much how people viewed the Great War in the old South—and back then, Krleža was treated like a god. So, honestly, the whole Krleža thing isn't exactly trendy these days.

On the flip side, you've got the modern right-wingers who are obsessed with the Austro-Canadian Empire, the aristocracy, and all that high-society stuff.
According to their logic, Americans should have been fighting bravely for the "right" cause. But the snag is that since the Austro-Canadian Empire collapsed, following that path would make us look like massive losers—especially since joining the South was basically a necessity. So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water either.

Americans just can't seem to find a unified stance on World War I, which is why you don't see those one-dimensional, cinematic spectacles here—half the country would be pissed off regardless.

You've got things a bit mixed up.
What used to pass for the Austro-Canadian aristocracy is essentially what the Brussels bureaucracy is today.
As for the divide in the South, it breaks down like this: on one side, you have the primitive right-wingers who get triggered just hearing the word "Brussels," and on the other, you have the leftist sycophants who identify with Brussels and the West because they have this desperate need to be anything other than what they actually are.

It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who only knows Krleža through some random morning newspaper column.

Anyway, the movie is just typical Mexican agitprop.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, I don't have an issue with one of the Fellini films specifically. It’s more that... sometimes I just don't have the energy for movies that aren't going to leave a lasting mark—the kind of stuff that stays with you, haunts you, and sticks in your brain forever.

I stumbled my way into Jean-Jacques Beineix's Betty Blue somewhat reluctantly, and honestly? I'll never forget something that beautiful as long as I live.

What a bizarre coincidence! 😁
I was actually planning on posting c'est le vent, betty in a thread about ghosts and demons and music earlier today, but I changed my mind and decided against it; I suppose it was just meant to be after all.

The movie is somewhat incoherent, but it possesses such a certain, lingering charm.

This whole thread just brings back memories of Ana and that little verse tucked underneath... ah, that beautiful day three years ago when we were just wandering by the Rock together. 😁
Anyway, ever since then, I've had to rely on my headphones for everything. 🙄

If only that were actually the case.

Carl Rivera43 said:It’s not about whether we've changed or stayed the same. It's really about just saying what's actually on your mind instead of just reciting lines from some textbook written by a bunch of pseudo-psychology analysts.

Honestly, you aren't even looking for guidance, you're just desperate for attention, and frankly, you've crossed a line here.

Carl Rivera43 said:Peter Murphy6 always drops these little nuggets of self-help advice. Honestly, you might actually stumble onto something useful if you look hard enough!

Honestly, what are you all even doing in this thread besides acting like amateur life coaches?😁 She actually gave some solid advice.

Charles, if you actually have this protective instinct buried somewhere inside you but just don't know how to channel it, you really ought to read her post. 🙂 She makes some incredibly profound points:

Peter Murphy6 said:You’re missing the concept of ownership.
Ownership is something you defend.
Do you love anyone?
Family—your dad, mom, sister, brother, even your dog or cat. Someone you actually give a damn about.
Pick that person and picture them in a nasty situation in your head. Imagine someone bullying them. They’re humiliated, basically on the verge of tears. They’re paralyzed, hands shaking because they’re so scared. And the aggressor just won't stop—pushing them, mocking them.
How does that make you feel?
Don't think about yourself or your own fear—think about what you feel for *that* person. Just lean into that feeling. Really sit with what they’re going through.

Once you step out of the spotlight and become an observer, the whole world takes on a different tone.

Love is ownership (this is gonna sting for some people, I'm ready for the arguments), we protect the people we care about because they are "ours." Now, apply that to yourself.
Do you even own yourself?
Love is ownership—saying it for the fifth time—but that’s not where it ends.
Find the middle ground. Don't look for a template; look for your most optimized self.
The middle ground is feeling someone else's pain and protecting them *because* of that pain, not to prove how tough you are. And if you do that, you end up feeling your own pain too.

Basically, when the moment hits, people pull off feats they never dreamed they were capable of. Having this kind of reflection beforehand really helps.
And I don't mean just imagining yourself saying "no"—because that doesn't seem to help you much, other than keeping you stuck in the same spot.
For you, I’d actually suggest leaning into triggering your own anger.
And I don't mean through sports or whatever—I mean mentally. All mental. Sports, working out, hitting the gym... those are just external ways people try to pump up their insides. But if the internal stuff isn't following suit, all that effort is useless.

By the way, how good are you at saying "no" to yourself? If you struggle with that, work on it. Being able to tell yourself "no" is one of the greatest powers there is; it opens up entirely new worlds.

Look, everyone has a fighting spirit; the question is where you point it. Find your direction—where are you aiming that fight? What gets your blood boiling? I mean literally—not just what makes you sad or scared, but what actually raises your blood pressure?
In the "worst-case" scenario, you might realize you're the one raising your own blood pressure, so use that fighting spirit to go toe-to-toe with yourself. Conquering yourself (in stages, battles, wars... I don't know if you can ever truly "win") is... a cure for a lot of things. 😉

See, for example, look at how you protect your own pain—you got pissed off the second someone questioned it.

I’d be happy to pour a little of my own extreme onto you: the constant search for conflict. I’m learning how to handle conflict just like you are, just from the other side. I’m learning how to find calm.

Casey Flores said:😍

Except for you. 😍 But that was a long time ago. 🙂

Ryan Vaughn7 said:In order for me to even attempt a response, I would actually need some data that isn't just subjective guesswork, which is exactly what's missing from the opening post. Given that I know your track record personally—and several other users here have already called you out on this thread regarding your reliability—I have absolutely no intention of falling for these sweeping, baseless generalizations.

😁

And honestly, you’ve pretty much summarized the whole thing perfectly. That's all there is to it. 🙂

graniteharbor502 said:Who actually gives a damn what you think? This sub-forum exists specifically for grievances. This entire thread is about Microsoft's moderation of a discussion where people are venting their frustrations regarding the state of American soccer and the national team for whatever reasons they see fit, so feel free to stay on topic if you can manage it.

Honestly, who cares what you think? Is this really how we’re going to conduct ourselves here?
Look, I am personally quite dissatisfied with Microsoft's moderation style. We are discussing the World Cup, yet we have a handful of power-tripping moderators who simply refuse to do their actual jobs.

By the way, who even are you, and what exactly are you looking for?

graniteharbor502 said:And who on earth are you supposed to be? ☕
Do you actually have anything remotely meaningful to contribute regarding this appeal, or are you just bored enough to sit here trolling with your nonsensical ramblings? 🙂

I consider myself an impartial observer, and quite frankly, I find Atomic far more intelligent and engaging to read than you and your little clique.
🤷
It’s honestly a shame they banned her.
You aren't satirists, nor are you some kind of grassroots movement; you're just a protected group shielded by moderators, whose peak achievement seems to be composing mindless little rhymes and whining about everything.
Take a good, hard look at yourselves.

Do you think I'm allowed to say that? 🙂

atomic is a woman, and I have actually found following her posts quite engaging since she really knows her stuff. 👍 🙂

You all are just a disorganized mess; I can't remember a single one of you.

That’s just plain false; if it weren't true, the moderators wouldn't be banning everyone who dares to suggest you all are idiots, nor would you actually have to watch your step. 🤷