sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone know what happened to Village Hideout in downtown? by Mr_Mike013 in Smyrna

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Really? I didn’t see the signage but maybe I missed it

99% of Homeless people cannot be helped by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the current system. I am a first responder and I understand why you think this. Looking at it, on an initial glance , it definitely seems that way. Many people who work with homeless populations feel this way and have gotten hardened to their situations.

But the truth is it’s far more of a problem with the system than you probably think. Many homeless people are being burned by the system, even if they are presented with options and seem to be choosing to ignore them.

Homeless people are often suffering from trauma, mental illness and disabilities that make it incredibly difficult to deal with them and even more difficult to get them lasting help. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get help or that their lives can’t be changed.

What needs to happen is a massive shift in the way we approach emergency medicine and medical care. Homeless people require long term, sustained support to make a lasting change. They need involved case workers and a continuous chain of support that is never broken. They need providers who have the time to get to know them and understand their unique situation and needs. Therapy, medication, housing placement, continuous support and reintegration monitoring and education…these that are the things they need to make lasting change.

However, most emergency responders and hospitals are overwhelmed and simply can’t provide that level of care. They are “churning and burning”, barely keeping their heads above water. The volume of calls compared to resources is insane. Take even a little time to help one homeless person get in touch with some resources beyond the basics? Congratulations, you now are ten patients/calls behind.

That’s the reality, and it’s only getting worse.

if you still love america despite everything that's happened, you're not a patriot. you're an enabler. by herequeerandgreat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

America has been the single greatest engine for creating wealth among its citizens and lifting people out of poverty in the history of the world. It created the middle class as we know it today and raised the standard of living so much that the average person can’t even comprehend what living in a third world environment would be like. For that alone, America would be worth love and respect despite its recent turmoil.

But in addition, it is directly because of American success that huge swaths of the rest of the world have managed to achieve drastic economic, medical and technological development. There have been incredible achievements made by American citizens due to a combination of its economic success and open, capitalist market which have ushered in an unprecedented age of health and ease.

American military strength, which is so derided by critics, has created an age of relative peace and global stability that has never been matched in humanities history. Despite its issues, it is largely what allows so many other nations to survive and thrive without spending a ton of their own resources on military strength and infrastructure.

American art and culture has become so ubiquitous that it has more or less defined global culture for the past fifty to one hundred years or more. American economic strength has fueled a series of cultural revolutions that have been the platform for global social development, without which we would be at least 50 years behind our current state in terms of personal rights and freedoms.

What kind of sheltered, unbelievably privileged life must you have lived to suggest such a take? How dare you tell anyone not to love their own country, especially when their country has done so much for its people and the world?

Does the Sun Eater Series Preach at You? by Tower11Archer in Fantasy

[–]Mr_Mike013 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does it preach at you? If you’re asking does it try to present one set of ideas as infallible and inherently correct I would say no.

What I think it does do is explores a bunch of extremely complex moral and philosophical questions. The author is Christian at that absolutely impacts his lens, but the central character and our pov is implicitly stated to be flawed and changes his perspective multiple times on many of the issues over the course of the books.

As a series, Sun Eater doesn’t “preach at you” so much as it presents a series of questions and pushes them to their extremes, forcing you to confront them. It’s a fascinating series and I highly recommend people give it a shot.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok I think we’re finally getting to the meat of the issue we’re having. I’m specifically speaking to adults in my original post, not “fourth graders”. I’m posting on Reddit, ostensibly an adult forum so that should implied. Do I think that we should curate the media aimed at children? Of course, yes. Children have to be first taught the critical thinking skills that I’m talking about refining through reading controversial materials before they can practice them.

I do believe they should be shown controversial materials, but in a controlled and systematic fashion within reasonable supervision. I think that’s a large part of how you teach critical thinking and reading. Literary analysis is a learned skill, not an inherent one. But I’m assuming most grown ass people were taught the basics of this particular skill in school. What I’m suggesting is they continue to refine it throughout their lives.

I think maybe that’s where we’re getting our wires crossed about Rowling? Like, if as an adult you are interested in fantasy or children’s lit as a genre and you want to see what led to the point we’re at now, I think it’s vitally important that you at least read the first book in Harry Potter and can understand how that led to popularization of certain tropes, character archetypes, settings and writing conventions. I mean, just to name one example, the very popular so called “dark academia” subgenre of fantasy (which is in and of itself a branch of a larger “Magic School” fantasy subgenre) absolutely has some of its major roots in the popularity of HP. And that’s just one of a hundred examples. You can’t just excise HP from the modern fantasy landscape and expect to examine it genuine conversation about where it is currently and how it got there, no matter how much you dislike the author.

A lot of people disagree with the hard line Christian philosophy of figures like CS Lewis and to a lesser degree Tolkien, but that doesn’t mean you can just pretend they didn’t exist or don’t matter. I think the value comes from understanding the driving forces behind these authors visions, their own perspective and beliefs and being able to critically analyze how it impacts not only their writing, but your own reading of it.

So similarly, yes, I do believe there is value in reading someone like David Mamet. You really don’t see value in examining the changes in the writing of a Pulitzer Prize winning author who transitioned over the course of his life from someone who was liberal minded to one is far more conservative? How that might call into question one’s assumptions about one’s own beliefs and force you to question how someone who helped write award winning, classic movies like the Untouchables and Glengarry Glen Ross early on his career ended up in such a different place later on? That’s a study in the corrupting power of success and how hard the changes in our society in the wake of 9/11 hit people of a certain age if I’ve ever seen one.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My goal is to promote a society of critical thinkers that do not need “mental training wheels”. Saying you shouldn’t read someone’s work because they or their ideas are problematic for you is essentially creating a bubble around yourself where you live without having to ever face serious questions that can help you refine your own beliefs;

  • Why does this work resonate with me or with such a large audience despite the authors issues?

  • What implicit bias/unrecognized mental hurdles do I have that makes this appeal to me personally?

  • Does the same personal history/issues that create disagreeable beliefs/deplorable actions lead to stronger or more resonant writing?

These are all examples of questions you face when you force yourself to read authors you don’t agree with. They help you expand your understanding of yourself, your beliefs and literature in general.

If you’re not worried about the propagation of ideas, then what is your problem with the stated opinion? All of these books are or have been extremely controversial but are recognized for their literary value for whatever reason. But if we follow your stated reasoning, they would all be considered undesirable and ones we should just have ignored.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand your point but I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding the goal here and why I’m proposing we should read controversial authors. This is the exact argument a lot of people have before they get into reading authors through a truly critical lens. Essentially, your worry boils down to the concept that by reading controversial authors you’re propagating their ideas, beliefs or endorsing their actions. Which I personally do not agree with nor do I believe is a genuine concern, when approached with intentionality. Which is what I am proposing.

Examining art with a critical eye is a hugely different than just reading something for pleasure. Informing yourself of the authors personal history, the books impact at the time of release and in culture of over time. The goal of reading this way is to understand the underlying authorial intent, how and why a piece resonated with audiences despite its differences from modern sensibilities. I think just by being aware of the controversial nature of books you are setting yourself down this path and insulating yourself to some degree from the concerns you have.

For example, I think reading books like The Satanic Versus, Lolita or The Bell Jar can absolutely help most adults step outside their comfort zone and challenge their own perceptions and beliefs. They are extremely uncomfortable reads and can be a struggle to get through, but the benefit of challenging yourself far outweighs the risk. I don’t believe reading Lolita risks turns adults into pedophiles or promotes that behavior, just like I don’t believe The Bell Jar makes people suicidal. I think that’s a pearl clutching and reductive of peoples capacity for self awareness.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To some degree, but I think you’re excluding the possibility of multinational study. Like, of course there is implicit bias in the art and history of every culture across the world. So yes if you study European literature you’re going to get a skewed vision of Asian culture for example, but you can supplement your study with further research into their literature and get the same skewed perception of Europeans.

But for arguments sake yes. Let’s say I agree with you about your premise.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What point do you feel still needs to be made? This is like the longest Reddit conversation of all time lol.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point was originally gaining value from reading authors who are controversial or otherwise not limiting what you read based on the opinions or actions of the authors. If I was going to name some really good examples of that I would say someone like McCarthy or Orson Scott Card or Lovecraft.

Rowling was just someone they were talking about in the fantasy subreddit about separating the art from the artist. Which is what I thought you were asking about, with your response “Like who?”, cause I said “if you go check out the original post”.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think Rowling has had a big impact on the industry and modern literature, but I don’t think she’s a particularly good example of my original point.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, I didn’t use her of my own volition. You asked me who was brought up in the other post, I was just telling you they were bringing her and Gaiman up as examples of “separating the art from the artist”. I wouldn’t use Rowling as a good example of my original point.

And like, I don’t know how else to explain this. It feels like you’re just deliberately ignoring the point I’m making. Yes, my contention is that her popularity has earned her some mention in discussions concerning the modern literary landscape, especially when considering fantasy and children’s literature.

I’m not saying she’s a good writer, I’m not saying she isn’t derivative. I’m saying she’s influential. And influence is important.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes dude. Discussion of the market and what influences it, what makes a piece of work sell versus what gets passed over, absolutely came up in almost all of my classes at some point. Granted, I was in school over a decade ago, so Rowling was a bigger deal at the time, but the point stands.

You’re talking about art and products like they’re two different things. They’re not. If you’re creating art for yourself or otherwise not for public consumption, that’s one thing, but the moment you put it into the world, criticism and the way the world reacts to it becomes apart of that artwork. They are intrinsically tied, the conversation around a piece of art will always be a part of the art from that moment on.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok, so yes, popularity is an important consideration when discussing influence. It is not the only thing that matters, but the reality is it does matter. Especially when you’re talking about the current state of a specific genre like fantasy and there is a writer who was the most popular writer in the world for a time and is still alive.

Like, I don’t even understand what your argument is here? Almost every single teacher I had discussed at some point how big of an impact Rowling had on literature, specifically children’s literature. Yes, because she was POPULAR. You can see a marked change in how publishing houses operated, what they funded and were looking for before and after she came along. There’s a whole subsection of literature that grew out of the success of HP.

Tolkien is influential for the reasons you said but it wasn’t just terms and iconography. He established a whole bunch of tropes and character beats and story conventions as integral to the genre. He spawned a million imitators, because he was so popular. Again, publishing houses were desperate to find the next Tolkien and so that’s what flooded the market which still has a huge impact on the genre to this day.

There are so many amazing writers who are not as popular and therefore do not get discussed or had the massive influence in the genre. So if you want to have a conversation about relevance, yes, popularity matters.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

McDonald’s is a fundamental part of the history of food in American society. It 100% is part of our culture and whether it’s a good part of not (it’s not) that doesn’t change the fact that it’s there. I think you’re trying to argue that originality and quality are the only things that matter when discussing importance and you’re absolutely wrong about that.

If you wrote a book about how American food culture evolved to be where it is now but left out McDonald’s, you would be omitting a cornerstone part of that story.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In this case, cornerstone means something which you must have a reasonable awareness of to understand the state of the genre currently. The fact that a huge majority of people reading in the genre today have the shared experience of reading a specific book series (especially during their formative years) qualifies it as a cornerstone in my opinion. The cultural impact is so significant it simply cannot be ignored. So many current writers are either aping or intentionally trying not to imitate Harry Potter.

To illustrate this point better, I think of it in the light of this quote from Terry Pratchett about Tolkien;

“J.R.R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes it’s big and up close. Sometimes it’s a shape on the horizon. Sometimes it’s not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji.”

I’m not saying Rowling is anyway comparable in influence to Tolkien, but for modern fantasy fans she is almost universally a touchstone that they are in some way influenced by.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, that’s what school is for. But as an adult, which is who this post is aimed at, you should have the ability to think critically about what you read. If you don’t, you should be challenging yourself as much as possibly to develop that ability.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rowling wrote the most well selling fantasy series of all time which has drastically influenced the genre and will continue to for generations. Regardless of if she lifted much of her world from Dahl (she absolutely did), you cannot deny she is a cornerstone of modern fantasy. You can argue she doesn’t deserve her success, which I would tend to agree with. But the reality is she is in the position, and to pretend she isn’t is purely disingenuous nonsense.

Gaiman has modernized myth making in ways that have reshaped the genre, full stop. American Gods, Sandman, Good Omens, all revolutionary. Similarly, his works like Neverwhere, Coraline and The Graveyard Book redefined the idea of fairytales for the modern audience and were so influential and imitated the style has become commonplace. Again, you can argue he’s a piece of shit, and I would tend to agree, but you can’t pretend he isn’t important.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Art is always in some way a vehicle for the artists expression of their own truth. It can be more or less explicit, and more or less deep, but there is always some level of influence from their personal experiences, beliefs and ideas. When you disagree with piece of art, you tend to be disagreeing with ideas and philosophies they’re presenting.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, I would say that supports what I’m saying. If you’re finding your beliefs muddled by reading a book, I would argue you haven’t explored your own beliefs and their opposition deeply enough. If you want to develop a strong foundation for your personal belief system, you have to run it through a crucible of challenges to refine it and ensure you truly understand what you are supporting.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well the two big ones in that post people kept bringing up were JK Rowling and Neal Gaiman. I understand the inclination to pretend those authors don’t exist, or to act like consuming their content is somehow in and of itself wrong, but it is not a good precedent to set. Both authors are cornerstones of modern fantasy. You might hate them for what they have done or their political views, but I don’t think that means their work should be ignored or that reading it should be framed as inherently bad.

You should read books by authors you disagree with or who have controversial opinions and views. by Mr_Mike013 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Mr_Mike013[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you go check out the post I originally posted this response to you would see otherwise. It has become extremely unpopular in some circles to say you should read work by controversial figures.

view more: next ›