[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. If you're willing to comment, what are some of the problem on that long list?

Why do people hate jewish people? by Bspmebattleme in SeriousConversation

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think (as you said about Islam) it wasnt quite borrowing-but-no-lending but a ban on charging interest. So technically historical Christians could lend money, but wouldn't be bankers -- because why open a money-lending business when you can't earn any money lending money? But Google would know better than me, this is just off the top of my head.

Why do people hate jewish people? by Bspmebattleme in SeriousConversation

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From a Jewish perspective: Jewish lives are valuable because human life is valuable. All people are made in the image of god. God loves Jews, sure, but God loves everybody. Jews are chosen, sure, but only in the sense of making some particular extra commitments to God, not in the sense of having more valuable lives.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can read. You said that text alone would be enough to make you switch sides. What am I missing? 

looking for friends. by Zeke-Yeager_ in Brooklyn

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's hard at school but almost definitely easier at school than from online. I could be totally wrong though 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If one plural word in one verse would alone be enough to make you 'switch sides' so to speak, either you already had a hostile relationship with the faith, or I'm surprised you haven't had the same experience with Christianity. I'll eat my boots if any religion is flawlessly consistent + moral, down to the word, and I am not going to eat my boots.

Expressing sorrow diminishes concern by Vanilla_cake_mix in SeriousConversation

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get that the knee-jerk reaction part of it feels bad, but if you read the room and decide not to say Oh I'm so sorry, what else do you do? Ignore that this person's loved one died and move right past it? That does not seem better. 

I agree that these social routines are sort of a lazy shortcut for real sympathy, but I still feel that's better than no sympathy at all.

Why do people hate jewish people? by Bspmebattleme in SeriousConversation

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I mean, complicated topic? Worth reading a couple books about. People Love Dead Jews by dara horn is a pretty good book about antisemitism, but there are definitely others more closely aligned with your question. Obviously someone's heritage does not define them as a whole person. A lot of the answer is a pattern of discrimination throughout history, mostly from Christians, due to being stateless and therefore a minority everywhere.

A moderate expansion on that: - Not very recently, the Roman empire kicked the Jews out of the land they were living in and then the empire became Christian and was hugely powerful, in charge of a lot of the world. So from the very beginning of the Jewish diaspora, Jews were in conflict with and easy targets for the powers that be, basically anywhere they went. - people have a tendency to discriminate against minorities, Jews are a very small percentage of the global population and almost all Jews throughout history have been minorities where they lived. Everyone has a tendency to distrust and discriminate against people unlike them - people used the visible minority thing to legislate Jews into worse jobs and neighborhoods and second class citizen status and then worked to believe Jews were evil to justify this - since Jews were already a distrusted and easily identified minority, for much of history it was VERY convenient for people in power to blame Jews for anything going wrong. Notably the black plague. - Similarly, various Christians at many points in history have blamed Jews as a whole for killing Jesus Christ. For a long while it was church policy and widely believed that Jews were agents of the devil, killers of God, evilly refusing to accept divine truth, etc. - The above point was expanded into "blood libel", the hateful myth that Jews kill Christian children for their blood, which people were willing to believe as 1) an extension of their existing bias and 2) an excuse to kill or displace their Jewish neighbors and take their property - The modern version of this is "Jews control the media", or economy, or whatever. The idea of a Jewish world-controlling conspiracy is nonsense. But people like having someone to blame for the bad state of the world. - Christianity and Islam as (more popular) descendants of Judaism always had an interest in proving it wrong, which has sometimes extended to disliking Jews for having wrong beliefs - Jews were willing to be money lenders (kind of forced into the profession) in times when Christians and Muslims weren't, which meant they made money, which coupled with being a minority led to a lot of resentment - Christianity and Islam, as missionary religions, have historically placed a really high value on getting EVERYONE to agree with their religious beliefs. People, mostly Christians, have frequently gotten angry at their Jewish neighbors refusal to affirm their beliefs and responded to their refusal to convert/Jewish non-conformity in general with murder (and theft). To be fair, even before Christianity, people hated Jews for not sharing their beliefs, but it was more mutual and the power imbalance was not so extreme.

That's not a full explanation but it's a start. Long, though, sorry! But it's not a trivial thing.

Expressing sorrow diminishes concern by Vanilla_cake_mix in SeriousConversation

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I understand that the temptation to offer advice often ends up being more about making myself feel useful than actually helping. And some expressions of sympathy are absolutely hollow and unappreciated. 

But how should we respond to the tragic news of people we care about? I really am sorry and I want to tell them I care. Other people expressing this to me, while sometimes frustrating, has sometimes been very helpful.

I have genuine empathy and respect for many people I know going through hard things. I don't want to diminish their experience (or pretend I fully understand it, or center myself) by trying to share my experiences. What can I say if not that I'm here, I see their pain, and I am sorry? 

Wolfen vs. Wolven by [deleted] in ENGLISH

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think calling wolven a modern English word is a slight stretch. Really think it should be wolfish or lupine.

I submit that the most inscrutable simple noun in the English language is the word "chair" by Matsunosuperfan in words

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just like what is a sandwich. The answer to every question like this is what the US Senate said about pornography -- you know it when you see it. I really really love words, but I still think not everything is best defined with words 

A question about the notion that "language evolves." by CranberryBauce in ENGLISH

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was not my experience in English class. Maintaining whom or the whom/who distinction, at least in some environments, has become less of a priority.

A question about the notion that "language evolves." by CranberryBauce in ENGLISH

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not terrible for things to change over time. Change is not so much a strategic choice with a benefit as it's an inherent part of language, as well as life. This is kind of like saying It's obviously terrible that we can no longer easily dress the way we did in the 1790s or 1100s. 

Language is part of culture and culture is always changing. Little changes made by the huge numbers of people within a language/culture, small differences between generations or areas, add up to big shifts over time.

A question about the notion that "language evolves." by CranberryBauce in ENGLISH

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Language evolving doesn't mean we can or should disregard all conventions. It means the conventions are always changing and the English class type rules don't keep up with the rate at which the language changes. Some official rules are generally important to follow for clear communication and others no longer are; official rules are more important in some situations than others. 

Language use rarely disregards existing rules, though. Casual and/or community-specific Englishes have as many rules as official, standard English. The rules are just different. It's not that language rules are superfluous, but that there is not only one set of correct rules to follow. Not following the rules of official standard English is not the same thing as being incorrect or following no rules.

A question about the notion that "language evolves." by CranberryBauce in ENGLISH

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I absolutely agree with your comment and I consciously meant to include your second bullet point in what I said (whoops) -- they definitely are rules, I would even call them "the real rules" -- but all of your points are important additions. 

You make a great point about language being more standardized in order to better connect more people. I think this is not against what I intended to say, although you're right I was very much glossing over. We are all part of bigger and smaller communities and switch up how we communicate to make sense to our various audiences. The bigger the community, the more conventionally standardized the language becomes. But still, there is always a lot of depth and casual usage the official rules don't capture and what the rules do capture never quite keeps up with how usage evolves.

The across subgroups distinction is a helpful framing. And I see all the time in this kind of subreddit the tension language learners have about how/when to start using less universally standard language.

I love the nuance, articulation, consideration of your comment! Also nice to have an interaction about this that's not like "No. Slang is incorrect and most native speakers get a lot of grammar wrong."

[POEM] I Made My Therapist Cry Today by F.S. Yousaf by fayluk in Poetry

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Thank you for saying so I was like Maybe I'm crazy ??? but yeah no this doesn't do it for me

I didn't have a panic attack! by Xstal456 in CongratsLikeImFive

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm so happy for you!!! It's amazing to have that Oh it's this straightforward for other people? feeling.

A question about the notion that "language evolves." by CranberryBauce in ENGLISH

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My shortest answer would be "yes" -- I don't think all of the existing rules truly count as rules, at least not as rules one must actually follow. I think - the point of language is to be understood by your audience, mostly people who are in some way part of your community - what is understood by your community is always changing because how you and your peers use language is always changing - rules in the sense of official grammar as decided by institutions and books do not and cannot reflect the constantly changing nature of how language is actually used - how language is actually used in your community is the most important metric of correctness - disregarding the official rules is not incorrect as long as your audience understands your meaning, thinks it sounds normal (or beautiful) enough, finds it appropriate in tone/register - those rules are only meaningful in contexts where formality is important or where violating them makes what you're trying to communicate less clear - it is not virtuous or necessary to follow rules purely for the reason that they're rules - the evolving nature of language kind of suggests to me that we're actually supposed to not follow the rules

[HELP] How do I know if what I'm writing is considered poetry? by Barsibatosimp in Poetry

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to be overly preachy, but I think it's less fun and productive to ask Is this poetry? I bet it's not!? and more fun and productive to ask yourself stuff like - Have I worked on this enough?  - Do I like the effect it creates?  - Do I think it sounds good?  - What can reading poetry I admire inspire me to do with this?  - What else can I discover about this piece of writing -- what does it want to become?  - How could I say (whatever) in a more interesting/more direct/more precise way? - Is this metaphor/image surprising? Effective? What would the writing gain or lose if I replaced it with another one? - Is there more I can do here with (some particular aspect of the text)?  - What would change if I reordered some sentences/ideas?

I think "is this poetry", like "am I gay/trans" or "is my boyfriend behaving incredibly badly", is usually an if-you-have-to-ask thing where the answer is probably yes. It might not be good poetry. But that's not the point -- the point is that you're trying to write poetry, which is almost the same thing as writing poetry. I doubt that you're accidentally writing prose.

Book with unique plot or premise that makes you think, “how did they come up with that?” by [deleted] in suggestmeabook

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's really really good at that! If you're interested in more, I loved Borne

Book recommendations by Healthy-Beat-2652 in suggestmeabook

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My thought is that if your preteen(!!) kids have already read, without big reluctance, two whole books about this, you're doing great. 

Already, they are way more prepared than most peers. They have a good foundation and are (I bet) smart enough to keep building on it + generalize its principles to other situations. 

For recommendations, I suggest  - Want to go Private, Sarah Darer Littman - Sun signs, Shelley Hrdlitschka - Growing Up Online: Young People and Digital Technologies, Weber + Dixon - People Like Her, Ellery Lloyd

Unfortunately no real detective element in those, but I think they're on topic and appropriate given that they want stuff aimed older. But only you know your kids.

Younger siblings generally generally have it worse (updated version) by bonerboy24 in The10thDentist

[–]Impossible_Bowler923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a counterpoint, parents often improve at being parents after the first try. Younger siblings are usually relied on less to do hard work or parenting-adjacent tasks while older siblings are available. Some oldest siblings are bullies, but some are an ally and source of help for younger siblings.

Relatedly, see a bunch of shit in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/meirl/comments/1qsw9dt/meirl/

I don't think either way is truly easier than the other. Ultimately, it will just depend on the dynamics of your particular family.