Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, some of you are so pathetic. Your kid will read some Shakespeare and please don’t act like your kid will magically get smarter by reading it.

In your expert opinion, what books are making our kids smarter? Harry Potter? Oh no, that's with the author that doesn't support trans rights... Soon only the books on Lady Cannon's list will be approved staples for consumption lol.

Unless you are saying kids should not read books anymore, since they don't get them smarter by reading them.

I beg to differ, reading 100 books from the canon will make them smarter, happier and more interesting human beings.

I posted some books already, I can’t be bothered again. (Not white supremacy books lol)

And again, why are you acting like you’re under 25 and your brain hasn’t fully developed? Did I say reading in general doesn’t help you grow? No, I said Shakespeare.
I also said some will be read anyway.

Why do you keep referencing HP? Do you not know any other modern authors lmao. No wonder you love Shakespeare so much, must be the era in which you transmigrated from.

Please, no more book suggestions, enough damage has been done already!

Thank you for the clarfication, just to make sure I got it right, reading in general does help one grow, just not Shakespeare. Some will read anyway, against your advice, but... no gains! Got it!

Harry Potter is referenced as a stand in for popular but low quality books. There is the argument that at least it gets kids reading instead of playing video games. The opposing view is as useless and facile reading. Saying it belongs to the English literature class as a serious study, is a trolling joke. Same with Wimpy Kid, these are books that elementary school students read. If you haven't figured out this by now, sigh....

Shakespeare stands in for timeless books that are part of the cultural heritage of humanity, the so called western literary canon. Books that are remarcable by their mastery of language, originality, books that changed how we think, the stories we tell to each other etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, some of you are so pathetic. Your kid will read some Shakespeare and please don’t act like your kid will magically get smarter by reading it.

In your expert opinion, what books are making our kids smarter? Harry Potter? Oh no, that's with the author that doesn't support trans rights... Soon only the books on Lady Cannon's list will be approved staples for consumption lol.

Unless you are saying kids should not read books anymore, since they don't get them smarter by reading them.

I beg to differ, reading 100 books from the canon will make them smarter, happier and more interesting human beings.

I posted some books already, I can’t be bothered again. (Not white supremacy books lol)

And again, why are you acting like you’re under 25 and your brain hasn’t fully developed? Did I say reading in general doesn’t help you grow? No, I said Shakespeare.
I also said some will be read anyway.

Why do you keep referencing HP? Do you not know any other modern authors lmao. No wonder you love Shakespeare so much, must be the era in which you transmigrated from.

Christopher Marlow was better

Plot twist: Christopher Marlow wrote at least some of the work attributed to Shakespeare: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/apr/14/did-shakespeares-taming-of-the-shrew-have-two-authors-christopher-marlowe

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, some of you are so pathetic. Your kid will read some Shakespeare and please don’t act like your kid will magically get smarter by reading it.

In your expert opinion, what books are making our kids smarter? Harry Potter? Oh no, that's with the author that doesn't support trans rights... Soon only the books on Lady Cannon's list will be approved staples for consumption lol.

Unless you are saying kids should not read books anymore, since they don't get them smarter by reading them.

I beg to differ, reading 100 books from the canon will make them smarter, happier and more interesting human beings.

I posted some books already, I can’t be bothered again. (Not white supremacy books lol)

And again, why are you acting like you’re under 25 and your brain hasn’t fully developed? Did I say reading in general doesn’t help you grow? No, I said Shakespeare.
I also said some will be read anyway.

Why do you keep referencing HP? Do you not know any other modern authors lmao. No wonder you love Shakespeare so much, must be the era in which you transmigrated from.

Christopher Marlow was better

I still think the bible should be required reading for all students in the US. It's the real foundation of our literature and even our culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, some of you are so pathetic. Your kid will read some Shakespeare and please don’t act like your kid will magically get smarter by reading it.

In your expert opinion, what books are making our kids smarter? Harry Potter? Oh no, that's with the author that doesn't support trans rights... Soon only the books on Lady Cannon's list will be approved staples for consumption lol.

Unless you are saying kids should not read books anymore, since they don't get them smarter by reading them.

I beg to differ, reading 100 books from the canon will make them smarter, happier and more interesting human beings.

I posted some books already, I can’t be bothered again. (Not white supremacy books lol)

And again, why are you acting like you’re under 25 and your brain hasn’t fully developed? Did I say reading in general doesn’t help you grow? No, I said Shakespeare.
I also said some will be read anyway.

Why do you keep referencing HP? Do you not know any other modern authors lmao. No wonder you love Shakespeare so much, must be the era in which you transmigrated from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are anti-intellectual because they say "read things besides the 300 pages of written work by a dead early modern writer." This is the argument of an 'intellectual?'

If you want to save the appearance of not being anti intellectual, at least bother to check what literary period Shakespeare belongs to. Definitely not early modern. You just undermine your own argument better than I could ever do it.

It should be obvious by now that the last few pages showed very clearly the validity of my original thesis that the Democrats have successfuly replaced Rupublicans as the party of anti intellectualism.

Q. E. D.

Shakespeare wasn't Early Modern?!

Early modern is being used in two different senses here, and the lack of understanding between the two sides leads to insults being thrown around, of which I highly approve. Early modern is a linguistic period in English in which Shakespeare worked. Early modern is also a literary period corresponding to the turn of the century until approximately the end of WWII.

Well, I am technically correct since he didn't say early modern English lol.

I could say you are both technically correct, but instead I will say you are both technically wrong in order to stir the pot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are anti-intellectual because they say "read things besides the 300 pages of written work by a dead early modern writer." This is the argument of an 'intellectual?'

If you want to save the appearance of not being anti intellectual, at least bother to check what literary period Shakespeare belongs to. Definitely not early modern. You just undermine your own argument better than I could ever do it.

It should be obvious by now that the last few pages showed very clearly the validity of my original thesis that the Democrats have successfuly replaced Rupublicans as the party of anti intellectualism.

Q. E. D.

Shakespeare wasn't Early Modern?!

Early modern is being used in two different senses here, and the lack of understanding between the two sides leads to insults being thrown around, of which I highly approve. Early modern is a linguistic period in English in which Shakespeare worked. Early modern is also a literary period corresponding to the turn of the century until approximately the end of WWII.

Well, I am technically correct since he didn't say early modern English lol.

Anonymous wrote:God, some of you are so pathetic. Your kid will read some Shakespeare and please don’t act like your kid will magically get smarter by reading it.

In your expert opinion, what books are making our kids smarter? Harry Potter? Oh no, that's with the author that doesn't support trans rights... Soon only the books on Lady Cannon's list will be approved staples for consumption lol.

Unless you are saying kids should not read books anymore, since they don't get them smarter by reading them.

I beg to differ, reading 100 books from the canon will make them smarter, happier and more interesting human beings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are anti-intellectual because they say "read things besides the 300 pages of written work by a dead early modern writer." This is the argument of an 'intellectual?'

If you want to save the appearance of not being anti intellectual, at least bother to check what literary period Shakespeare belongs to. Definitely not early modern. You just undermine your own argument better than I could ever do it.

It should be obvious by now that the last few pages showed very clearly the validity of my original thesis that the Democrats have successfuly replaced Rupublicans as the party of anti intellectualism.

Q. E. D.

Shakespeare wasn't Early Modern?!

Early modern is being used in two different senses here, and the lack of understanding between the two sides leads to insults being thrown around, of which I highly approve. Early modern is a linguistic period in English in which Shakespeare worked. Early modern is also a literary period corresponding to the turn of the century until approximately the end of WWII.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are anti-intellectual because they say "read things besides the 300 pages of written work by a dead early modern writer." This is the argument of an 'intellectual?'

If you want to save the appearance of not being anti intellectual, at least bother to check what literary period Shakespeare belongs to. Definitely not early modern. You just undermine your own argument better than I could ever do it.

It should be obvious by now that the last few pages showed very clearly the validity of my original thesis that the Democrats have successfuly replaced Rupublicans as the party of anti intellectualism.

Q. E. D.

Shakespeare wasn't Early Modern?!

God, some of you are so pathetic. Your kid will read some Shakespeare and please don’t act like your kid will magically get smarter by reading it.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are anti-intellectual because they say "read things besides the 300 pages of written work by a dead early modern writer." This is the argument of an 'intellectual?'

If you want to save the appearance of not being anti intellectual, at least bother to check what literary period Shakespeare belongs to. Definitely not early modern. You just undermine your own argument better than I could ever do it.

It should be obvious by now that the last few pages showed very clearly the validity of my original thesis that the Democrats have successfuly replaced Rupublicans as the party of anti intellectualism.

Q. E. D.

They'll come back, there's an election tomorow for governor of VA, it pretty much guaratees righteous posers will want to pose for being right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd have to diagree with you on this one, can you really teach literature and critical thinking on any book even when the book is not really literature? How about vocabulary, style, or the ideas and contents developed in said work. How about reading a work simply because it got ingrained in the cultural fabric of society and it keeps being referenced over and over (even in NCIS SVU lol).

Wait a second... you said theater of the absurd earlier....

You can, yes. I happen to know, because that's what I was trained to do. I'm not really interested in getting into a debate about it though, because this has been 27 pages of hilarity, and I would like for it to continue. The laypeople should keep talking.

Perfect than!

I feel bad for the poster that said don't feed the troll. On DCUM, as soon as you mention Republican, there is a feeding frenzy for an eclectic collection of Stepford wives, blue haired gender fluid 20 somethings, and bros that pose as woke in the hope of scoring the chick that broght up white privilege at the last keg party.

People, it's just bait for being made fun of on an anonymous public forum.

Sigh. I broke it, didn't I?