Untitled

"Borrowing from Ladino and Yiddish."

"Borrowing from Ladino and Yiddish"

as for my response to that, there are a couple of things to unpack here.

modern Hebrew is continuous with older forms of Hebrew - this is no "break". Hebrew was never a "dead" language.

modern Hebrew is closer to ancient Hebrew than modern English is to the English of only a few centuries back. evidently, children speaking modern Hebrew can read the Tanakh without needing to learn ancient Hebrew, and only need a word explained to them here and there.

modern Hebrew is also closer to ancient Hebrew than modern Arabic is to older Arabic. ironically enough, Judeo-Arabic has older roots than the Arabic that is spoken today in most places - because it has Aramaic roots.

throughout the entirety of exile, Hebrew has been used by Jews all around the world, and even developed different subtle quirks in different regions - something which, antizionists usually know to say (as a gotcha), without thinking of how it goes against the claim that Hebrew "wasn't spoken" slash "was only liturgical". a purely liturgical language does not develop differently in different regions - see, for instance, the liturgical dialect of Arabic.

due to this, one thing that WAS required for the revitalization of Hebrew, was some type of a merge between these subtle differences. which, personally, i think we did rather poorly. but that could be its own post, and my opinion is of much of a minority anyways (as i've been proved here enough times). either way, considering the fact that this was arguably the first case of language revitalization... i mean - is the alternative of letting a language die any better?

one thing that Hebrew was used less for, was constructing new ideas. that already began to change towards the end of the second exile, WAY before Eliezer Ben Yehuda (which is given the title of the mind behind the revitalization of Hebrew by both Zionists and antizionists, which is its own exaggeration).

yes, the revitalization of Hebrew required "borrowing" words from other languages - same way that all languages do. how does one say "television" in Arabic? or "queue" in English? thing is, Hebrew had a lot of ground to cover, since for some time it was used less for creating new ideas, some more modern concepts didnt have proper Hebrew terminology. which brings me to my next point-

modern Hebrew actually attempted to prefer Hebrew words other foreign ones. we have words for scientific terms which are often universalized in other places, e.g. sickness names. the fun thing about Semetic languages is that they're root-pattern based, and can easily derive words from other words. the modern Hebrew word for "texting" is derived from the word for "writing", the word for "airplane" is derived from the word for "air", etc.

if anything, modern Hebrew borrowed most from Aramaic - tho the same can be said about the Hebrew used in the time of Baith Sheni. if anything, modern Hebrew uses LESS Aramaic nowadays.

in general, you gotta love (sarcasm) the take that "language revitalization is a tool of colonization". it's just so incredibly harmful on the linguistic aspect of things. it opens the gate for pushing down other attempts of revitalization, too. take Wales, who took inspiration from the revitalization of Hebrew, to try and preserve Welsh. take Aboriginal people who took inspiration to try and revitalize their own languages. the revitalization of Hebrew had a good balance of new and old (or rather, old with a sparkle of new) which plenty of people who are connected to endangered languages, could learn from. this new* gen z insistence that the revitalization of Hebrew is Evil™, these people are discouraged to learn - practically endangering minority languages further. [*new from the western point of view, i will not get into the USSR - tho it is tempting, i am simply not knowledgeable enough on that topic].

Arabic is used in the vast majority of the Middle East. Hebrew, however, is only used in one tiny are. if your take is, "i want to destroy a language spoken by a tiny minority of people and replace it with one spoken towards the greater region" then congrats, you're imperialist, and by extension, hold strictly colonial worldviews. OWN UP TO IT.

Yiddish and Ladino developed from Hebrew, not the other way around.

the very fact that Jews have developed their own languages (again, from Hebrew!) in different regions is already an indicator that Jews are an ethnicity, not merely a religion. how many religions are out there who developed their own languages, which are not linked to any ethnic group? none. because a religion is a set of cultural bindings - whether they're held by one primary ethnic group (ethnoreligeons) or were imposed on large regions by brute force (e.g. christianity, islam). Arabic is not the language of the muslims, it is the language of the Arabs. whose language is Yiddish - the Yidden's? oh what do you know - Jews'. and if one's trying to claim that Hebrew is the language of the Hebrew, not the Jews - see next point.

the Jews are the Hebrews. our ethnicity was referred to as "Hebrew" through the majority of history, hell - some places still call us Hebrews today. (hate to be linking Wikipedia here, but you can check the references).

when antizionist refer to Hebrew "stealing" from Arabic, they dont usually refer to adapted roots (e.g. the root n.z.l which means to go down in Arabic being adapted into Hebrew to describe liquids), but rather to one of two things: to grammar (which was not adapted from Arabic what so ever - Hebrew grammar has remained roughly the same as it was, with the major change being in the future tense (chapter4)), or to Israeli slang, which - and i cannot emphasize this enough - was made as a result of people fleeing from Arab-lead countries, as i mentioned above.

Yiddish and Ladino were only spoken by Jews in specific areas, while Hebrew is spoken by most Jews worldwide. so, when these Jews moved to Eretz Yisrael, they had one language which is to some extent "nobody's first language, but everybody's second". it was the obvious choice.

mocking the revitalization of Hebrew does nothing but achieve two results. one, is the mocking of Jewish heritage; which is something that antizionists will never care about. the other, is pulling down other endangered languages and chances of revitalizing them - which is something that antizionists will never realize.

in simple terms - people could achieve so much more had they only accepted the fact that Jews (/ Hebrews / Israelites / Israelis / whatever current name they use to hate us under) are people. who they could even learn from. it's... quite frustrating, honestly.

Do they think everyone in Spain speaks Spanish because it's the natural common language that just ~developed there and everyone agreed to speak it exclusively? (They didn't and don't. Spain has many regional languages.)

As with any other wholesale rejection of “Western Medicine” or “Big Pharma” for being too corporate, too Capitalist, too Colonial, or what have you—no matter how much there may be a kernel of truth there—once you throw out the science, all that’s left is pseudoscience.

Like anti-vaxx, no matter how much it masquerades as activism & liberation, no matter how much it invokes bodily autonomy or freedom, it just makes the issues it claims to address significantly worse.

Anti-psych kicked off around the time of asylums, lobotomies, and electro-shock, when Freud and Jung were still in living memory. One could easily be forgiven for looking at all that and saying “no thank you” when anti-psych’s own quackery was harder to parse because psychiatry was largely interlaced with what we would now consider barbaric quackery.

this is more or less par for the course with the rhetoric of anti-science movements. anti-vaxxers make exactly the same arguments. “we just don’t want anyone to be forced; it’s about bodily autonomy” “the medical establishment is just after money and making you conform; it’s all about control”.

not that there aren’t any grains of truth to there being coercive aspects or profit motive in the industry, but bullshit coalescing around grains of truth is how most lies work.

you don’t have to tell someone they should pour their pills down the drain to have a similar negative; the fear of psychiatry, and the ideological certainty can be enough.

if we can understand that ED blogs are harmful even if they aren’t actively telling people they need to be anorexic, we can understand other mental illness influencers can have harmful impact.

Healthy people doing things inconvenient for those in power have been diagnosed with mental illness in an attempt to control their behavior, this is true. That does not imply that there's no such thing as mental illness. It certainly doesn't imply that people who are suffering should resort to grifter pseudoscience instead.

Most mental illness has an environmental and social component as well as an internal, chemical one. That doesn't mean medication is useless. Sometimes the medication is needed to get a person into a state where they can start to address their other problems!

Coercive treatment is something that should be used rarely and with great caution, and when, exactly it's appropriate will never be a question that's easy or finished. It should be easier to talk about suicidal thoughts without risking involuntary commitment, but trying to fix it requires changing not just medical practice but legal liability issues.

But, if you're sitting there actively self-harming, it actually is your loved ones' business, and it would be really unethical if they didn't try to get you help! You're really unwell but you are impacting the people around you. It was maddening, absolutely maddening, to have bastardized and twisted bodily autonomy rhetoric thrown back in our faces by someone who was putting themselves in danger. This person more or less had to be given an ultimatum to go get help, and I know people on here would hate that, but I'm fairly certain this relative would've just died if not pushed by their relatives to get treatment, and yeah, having someone alive but going through the hard work of recovery is better than enabling them until they die.

And this relative isn't on the enabling website that is tumblr, or in similar enabling online spaces, but it's actually scary to think of them falling into one of these internet communities that would parrot that exact rhetoric and validate their refusal to get help. But now this relative is in therapy and on medication, and yes, the medication is helping them. It's not a cure, but it's helping to take the edge off. I've made posts on here criticizing the anti-psych attitudes tumblr has not because there haven't been legitimate problems with the field, but because I know that if it were up to the anti-psych people, someone like my relative would be dead. They're not the only one in my family who has serious mental illness, too, and I've seen the irl end result of refusing treatment too much to entertain the anti-psych crowd, sorry not sorry

There are some antizionists who want that, but I'm pretty sure they're a minority. Many, probably most, people who consider themselves antizionist want a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and harmony. Heck, some people think antizionism means a two state solution. A lot of people just think antizionism means opposing the legitimately terrible crimes of the Israeli government.

Yeah. It's completely fair to say that the "antizionist" movement, in the majority, does want half of the world's Jews either dead or displaced, and your attempt to say that this isn't the case--telling Jews that we sound "paranoid and insane" instead of facing the widespread Jew-hate in your movement--is just so much attempted gaslighting.

...

Many, probably most, people who consider themselves antizionist want a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and harmony.

...

I personally think that one state is unrealistic. Depending on how it was pursued, I think it might very well result in mass death and displacement for Israeli Jews.

There are some antizionists who want that, but I'm pretty sure they're a minority. Many, probably most, people who consider themselves antizionist want a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and harmony. Heck, some people think antizionism means a two state solution. A lot of people just think antizionism means opposing the legitimately terrible crimes of the Israeli government.

Yeah. It's completely fair to say that the "antizionist" movement, in the majority, does want half of the world's Jews either dead or displaced, and your attempt to say that this isn't the case--telling Jews that we sound "paranoid and insane" instead of facing the widespread Jew-hate in your movement--is just so much attempted gaslighting.

...

Many, probably most, people who consider themselves antizionist want a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and harmony.

...

I personally think that one state is unrealistic. Depending on how it was pursued, I think it might very well result in mass death and displacement for Israeli Jews.

When women arent interested in something(video games), its a crisis, we need to make changes to cater to them. And hey, it'll be good for game companies too because they're an 'untapped market.'

But yea I dont know enough about the publishing as a business, current trends in book publishing or how much of the issue is 'men stopped reading' vs 'publishers stopped printing books men want to read' vs 'some other separate factor I havent thought of' to have much of an opinion on what can/should be done about it.

yeah, if this is how you're acting, scrambling to claim victimhood in the face of a *literal* genocide, I'm glad I'm not on your side.

also, "you people" in reference to anti-zionists(read: normal people who want the genocide to end)? sounds about right.

I'm not engaging with any arguments about antisemitism because i know the pro-palestinian movement is heavily populated with Jewish people who have the good sense to shut up about themselves and that you feeling a little uncomfortable *literally* does not matter. sorry if you're used to be coddled but personally I don't give a shit if you're scared to go to a protest. this is not an antisemitism issue, it's a forcing the conversation to be about ME! ME! ME! issue.

I talk to the parents frequently and visibly Jewish families are terrified to go out. There are children spat at, mothers shoved around, fathers cornered and harassed on the train. Anyone wearing a kippah or tzitzis is a target.

Threats get followed through as well, there were recent murders locally. These people are not asking our opinion about Palestine before terrorizing our families.

Believe it or not, Jews are human beings who deserve to show our faces in public. Your whataboutism doesn't justify real human suffering and terror.

This caught my eye the other day, and since then I've been waffling on whether or not to open this particular barrel of worms. I've seen a handful of posts like this over the last couple of months rattling around in the tags — this is just the most recent — but I think it merits some sort of response. I'm just... tired.

Anyway, the post in question:

I don't know what "that post" they're referring to, but if it's something to the effect of the tag "Hollywood going out of its way to normalize the genocidal entity to the world by sprinkling in constant references to it," then I think I've gotten the gist.

Now, I can offer whatever reasons there may be that the writers of the show use the term "Israeli bandages" when it can be (and often is) called something else, just as I can offer whatever reasons there may be that the writers of the show have Santos knowing (and bragging about knowing) krav maga. But... that really isn't the point of posts like this, is it? The point isn't "well there may be a perfectly innocent explanation!"

The point is to make you think that the non-innocent explanation — the real explanation, the one they're using the innocent explanation to conceal from you — is that there's a vast conspiracy to "normalize the genocidal entity." That "Hollywood" is focused on making American TV viewers think of Israel in a "normalized" way, and that their schemes trickle down into every show they have on their docket. That no reference to Israel is made without a deeper, more sinister purpose in mind.

Therefore explaining the history of using "krav maga" as a narrative shorthand for "person who is humorously weird about self-defense" won't do much, nor will reciting the history of the emergency hemostatic bandage. Instead, I'd like everyone to sit and think through how this vast Hollywood conspiracy would work, at least as far as The Pitt is concerned. Let's do this together! It'll take less than two minutes. Go on, try it!

So first theory: that "Hollywood" means "studio executives and other major movers within the industry, and they're the ones who want to yadda yadda. Was there a memo from the HBO executives that there had to be at least three references to Israel within the fifteen episodes? Were those shadowy executives okay with two of those references being the exact same thing, namely a type of field dressing? Did they personally sign off on the use of "krav maga" as a reference as well? Did this edict come down during the writing process, or did these shadowy Hollywood executives see a few episodes and panic, thinking "wait! there's no references to the genocidal entity! Put some in STAT! Haha that's a word medical shows use right? But seriously put in some propaganda in the form of an obscure martial art and an even more obscure medical tool!" Second theory: "Hollywood" means "all or most people working in the entertainment industry in LA." (Not impossible, but considering how these conspiracy theories usually play out, it would be unusual for them not to think that these edicts are coming from either on high or from the puppet-masters controlling those on high.) Thus, perhaps it was the writers of episodes... 13 & 15, I think? Which are Joe Sachs & R. Scott Gemmill — Gemmill is also creator and showrunner, so we can't assume that these references were just snuck in under his nose somehow. So perhaps he wanted to normalize the genocidal entity with these three references! Not via anything more blatant, like an Israeli student who'd been shot or a pro-Palestine advocate being responsible for the shooting. No no, it has to be sneaky and crafty, just these very subtle hints like using the word "israeli" twice in fifteen episodes and making a joke about Santos warning Whitaker not to mess with her. So clever! So underhanded!

I timed reading through those two theories. Less than two minutes.

Now, did any of that make sense if you followed it from beginning to end? Like again, how does this work? And to what end? To trick Americans into liking Israel? But in a way so subtle that the references to Israel are in themselves completely anodyne?

I am sick of losers jumping in to defend adults who don’t read books. Adults who don’t seek out news. I don’t give a fuck about their feelings. I don’t give a fuck if this makes them feel embarrassed and ashamed. They should feel that.

No exploring what has led to this state of affairs, no addressing root causes, just pissing and moaning about Other People not behaving the way you'd prefer them too.

For my readers, actual actions that can be done:

Increased funding for public libraries so that there are more of them, open for longer hours!

Increased funding for public transit infrastructure so that people can reach those libraries!

Crackdowns on ADA compliance (and funding for renovations and updates) for all public spaces so that people can reach those libraries!

Education and access to ebooks and audiobooks for people who are housebound or have reading difficulty (Ex. my mother can't read printed words anymore because of substantial vision loss; she still loves audiobooks)

Examining educational praxis and its role in the literacy crisis; https://teachyourchildtoread.com/phonics-vs-sight-reading/

Children's Right Movements that put children's health, education, and safety over Parental Rights concerns.

Adult literacy programs that are free to the public and occur at various times and venues to be available to people with different schedules

DISMANTLING CAPITALISM SO PEOPLE HAVE THE TIME AND ENERGY/FOCUS TO SIT DOWN AND READ A BOOK. (It's really hard to find time to read for pleasure if you're working two jobs, especially if you're also caring for children, elders, etc)

But nah, none of the above. Just telling people that they should be ashamed. That'll help anyone, ever. Certainly it won't just cause mental health issues while doing nothing to address the problem.

I want to know what you meant when you said 'This is the time to stop the drain before it’s too late.'

You would probably benefit from reading this thread:

https://moniquill.tumblr.com/post/783657771220516864

It is absolutely worth it to assess how many of these people are engaging in this behavior (not reading/seeking out news) and why that is.

No really, the capitalism one will absolutely help more people who would read but aren't reading because they don't have the time or energy or the access.

Basically, my rebuttal is to the idea that Rugged Individualism and Bootstraps Logic is useful to anyone, ever.

How do you seperate 'people who could be reading books but aren't' from 'people who can't read books because one or more serious obstacles are in their way'

https://www.arts.gov/stories/blog/2024/federal-data-reading-pleasure-all-signs-show-slump

^ this is real

It is reasonable to be angry about it; be mad as hell!

But the thing about anger is that it's only useful if it leads you to attack the cause of problems. Shame and Scorn are not useful tools to get people to change their behavior: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/longing-for-nostalgia/201705/why-shaming-doesnt-work

https://devonprice.medium.com/why-shame-doesnt-work-906727dbad0f

If there are people in your immediate auspices who could be reading books but aren't, ask them why. Maybe offer assistance. Maybe recommend some books to them.

You keep going to a hypothetical person who wants to read books but just can’t because of circumstances out of their control. That is not who this post is about. It’s about people who can very well pick up a book and start reading but choose not to.

The majority of adults in America are not in that position. America is not a nation comprised of hobbled masses but a nation where the majority of adults are better off than the majority of the world.

'The majority of adults in America are not in that position.' is an assertion. You are ALSO going to hypothetical people - these people who you assert could be reading and just aren't. They are not less hypothetical than people who want to read but just can't.

Can you show evidence that the hypothetical people you're talking about are more common than the hypothetical people I'm talking about?

Have you looked into why people don't want to read books?

ETA: others HAVE looked into it

The Average American spends three hours watching streamed media.

Not cooking, mending, hemming, ironing, vacuuming, mopping, dusting, tidying, meal prepping, folding laundry, brushing the dog, doing the dishes, sorting socks, covering schoolbooks, assembling furniture, weeding the carpet, organizing medications, eating, cutting toenails, or brushing hair? Because those are all chores that you have to do regularly, over and over again, and can't be holding and reading a book while you do it.

Don't get me wrong, I love reading books, but when I have a lot to do and not much time to do it in, I stick a show on and get to work. Recently the only time I've had to sit down and do nothing but read has been during the power outages from the cyclone.

Why aren't you reading right now? Is it because you enjoy socially engaging? Because it's fun? Because you are a bit tired and need to chill for a bit before bed? Amazingly everyone you're trying to paint as deliberately unread idiots who are uniquely to blame for the fall of civilisation experiences time and social pressures and enjoyment exactly the same way you do.

You understand that making a fun and engaging hobby into a mandatory chore is part of why people get scared out of reading in school right? That shame is not a motivator? That you've provided no correlation between the statistics that you're posting? That you're just making assumptions about what other people do with their time, then placing a value judgement on that guess?

I am sick of losers jumping in to defend adults who don’t read books. Adults who don’t seek out news. I don’t give a fuck about their feelings. I don’t give a fuck if this makes them feel embarrassed and ashamed. They should feel that.

No exploring what has led to this state of affairs, no addressing root causes, just pissing and moaning about Other People not behaving the way you'd prefer them too.

For my readers, actual actions that can be done:

Increased funding for public libraries so that there are more of them, open for longer hours!

Increased funding for public transit infrastructure so that people can reach those libraries!

Crackdowns on ADA compliance (and funding for renovations and updates) for all public spaces so that people can reach those libraries!

Education and access to ebooks and audiobooks for people who are housebound or have reading difficulty (Ex. my mother can't read printed words anymore because of substantial vision loss; she still loves audiobooks)

Examining educational praxis and its role in the literacy crisis; https://teachyourchildtoread.com/phonics-vs-sight-reading/

Children's Right Movements that put children's health, education, and safety over Parental Rights concerns.

Adult literacy programs that are free to the public and occur at various times and venues to be available to people with different schedules

DISMANTLING CAPITALISM SO PEOPLE HAVE THE TIME AND ENERGY/FOCUS TO SIT DOWN AND READ A BOOK. (It's really hard to find time to read for pleasure if you're working two jobs, especially if you're also caring for children, elders, etc)

But nah, none of the above. Just telling people that they should be ashamed. That'll help anyone, ever. Certainly it won't just cause mental health issues while doing nothing to address the problem.

I want to know what you meant when you said 'This is the time to stop the drain before it’s too late.'

You would probably benefit from reading this thread:

https://moniquill.tumblr.com/post/783657771220516864

It is absolutely worth it to assess how many of these people are engaging in this behavior (not reading/seeking out news) and why that is.

No really, the capitalism one will absolutely help more people who would read but aren't reading because they don't have the time or energy or the access.

Basically, my rebuttal is to the idea that Rugged Individualism and Bootstraps Logic is useful to anyone, ever.

How do you seperate 'people who could be reading books but aren't' from 'people who can't read books because one or more serious obstacles are in their way'

https://www.arts.gov/stories/blog/2024/federal-data-reading-pleasure-all-signs-show-slump

^ this is real

It is reasonable to be angry about it; be mad as hell!

But the thing about anger is that it's only useful if it leads you to attack the cause of problems. Shame and Scorn are not useful tools to get people to change their behavior: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/longing-for-nostalgia/201705/why-shaming-doesnt-work

https://devonprice.medium.com/why-shame-doesnt-work-906727dbad0f

If there are people in your immediate auspices who could be reading books but aren't, ask them why. Maybe offer assistance. Maybe recommend some books to them.

You keep going to a hypothetical person who wants to read books but just can’t because of circumstances out of their control. That is not who this post is about. It’s about people who can very well pick up a book and start reading but choose not to.

The majority of adults in America are not in that position. America is not a nation comprised of hobbled masses but a nation where the majority of adults are better off than the majority of the world.

'The majority of adults in America are not in that position.' is an assertion. You are ALSO going to hypothetical people - these people who you assert could be reading and just aren't. They are not less hypothetical than people who want to read but just can't.

Can you show evidence that the hypothetical people you're talking about are more common than the hypothetical people I'm talking about?

Have you looked into why people don't want to read books?

ETA: others HAVE looked into it

The Average American spends three hours watching streamed media.

Reading doesn’t require immense amount of energy and only burns at most 10 calories more than watching tv.

I am sick of losers jumping in to defend adults who don’t read books. Adults who don’t seek out news. I don’t give a fuck about their feelings. I don’t give a fuck if this makes them feel embarrassed and ashamed. They should feel that.

No exploring what has led to this state of affairs, no addressing root causes, just pissing and moaning about Other People not behaving the way you'd prefer them too.

For my readers, actual actions that can be done:

Increased funding for public libraries so that there are more of them, open for longer hours!

Increased funding for public transit infrastructure so that people can reach those libraries!

Crackdowns on ADA compliance (and funding for renovations and updates) for all public spaces so that people can reach those libraries!

Education and access to ebooks and audiobooks for people who are housebound or have reading difficulty (Ex. my mother can't read printed words anymore because of substantial vision loss; she still loves audiobooks)

Examining educational praxis and its role in the literacy crisis; https://teachyourchildtoread.com/phonics-vs-sight-reading/

Children's Right Movements that put children's health, education, and safety over Parental Rights concerns.

Adult literacy programs that are free to the public and occur at various times and venues to be available to people with different schedules

DISMANTLING CAPITALISM SO PEOPLE HAVE THE TIME AND ENERGY/FOCUS TO SIT DOWN AND READ A BOOK. (It's really hard to find time to read for pleasure if you're working two jobs, especially if you're also caring for children, elders, etc)

But nah, none of the above. Just telling people that they should be ashamed. That'll help anyone, ever. Certainly it won't just cause mental health issues while doing nothing to address the problem.

I want to know what you meant when you said 'This is the time to stop the drain before it’s too late.'

You would probably benefit from reading this thread:

https://moniquill.tumblr.com/post/783657771220516864

It is absolutely worth it to assess how many of these people are engaging in this behavior (not reading/seeking out news) and why that is.

No really, the capitalism one will absolutely help more people who would read but aren't reading because they don't have the time or energy or the access.

Basically, my rebuttal is to the idea that Rugged Individualism and Bootstraps Logic is useful to anyone, ever.

How do you seperate 'people who could be reading books but aren't' from 'people who can't read books because one or more serious obstacles are in their way'

https://www.arts.gov/stories/blog/2024/federal-data-reading-pleasure-all-signs-show-slump

^ this is real

It is reasonable to be angry about it; be mad as hell!

But the thing about anger is that it's only useful if it leads you to attack the cause of problems. Shame and Scorn are not useful tools to get people to change their behavior: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/longing-for-nostalgia/201705/why-shaming-doesnt-work

https://devonprice.medium.com/why-shame-doesnt-work-906727dbad0f

If there are people in your immediate auspices who could be reading books but aren't, ask them why. Maybe offer assistance. Maybe recommend some books to them.

You keep going to a hypothetical person who wants to read books but just can’t because of circumstances out of their control. That is not who this post is about. It’s about people who can very well pick up a book and start reading but choose not to.

The majority of adults in America are not in that position. America is not a nation comprised of hobbled masses but a nation where the majority of adults are better off than the majority of the world.

'The majority of adults in America are not in that position.' is an assertion. You are ALSO going to hypothetical people - these people who you assert could be reading and just aren't. They are not less hypothetical than people who want to read but just can't.

Can you show evidence that the hypothetical people you're talking about are more common than the hypothetical people I'm talking about?

Have you looked into why people don't want to read books?

ETA: others HAVE looked into it

The Average American spends three hours watching streamed media.

I am sick of losers jumping in to defend adults who don’t read books. Adults who don’t seek out news. I don’t give a fuck about their feelings. I don’t give a fuck if this makes them feel embarrassed and ashamed. They should feel that.

No exploring what has led to this state of affairs, no addressing root causes, just pissing and moaning about Other People not behaving the way you'd prefer them too.

For my readers, actual actions that can be done:

Increased funding for public libraries so that there are more of them, open for longer hours!

Increased funding for public transit infrastructure so that people can reach those libraries!

Crackdowns on ADA compliance (and funding for renovations and updates) for all public spaces so that people can reach those libraries!

Education and access to ebooks and audiobooks for people who are housebound or have reading difficulty (Ex. my mother can't read printed words anymore because of substantial vision loss; she still loves audiobooks)

Examining educational praxis and its role in the literacy crisis; https://teachyourchildtoread.com/phonics-vs-sight-reading/

Children's Right Movements that put children's health, education, and safety over Parental Rights concerns.

Adult literacy programs that are free to the public and occur at various times and venues to be available to people with different schedules

DISMANTLING CAPITALISM SO PEOPLE HAVE THE TIME AND ENERGY/FOCUS TO SIT DOWN AND READ A BOOK. (It's really hard to find time to read for pleasure if you're working two jobs, especially if you're also caring for children, elders, etc)

But nah, none of the above. Just telling people that they should be ashamed. That'll help anyone, ever. Certainly it won't just cause mental health issues while doing nothing to address the problem.

I want to know what you meant when you said 'This is the time to stop the drain before it’s too late.'

You would probably benefit from reading this thread:

https://moniquill.tumblr.com/post/783657771220516864

It is absolutely worth it to assess how many of these people are engaging in this behavior (not reading/seeking out news) and why that is.

No really, the capitalism one will absolutely help more people who would read but aren't reading because they don't have the time or energy or the access.

Basically, my rebuttal is to the idea that Rugged Individualism and Bootstraps Logic is useful to anyone, ever.

How do you seperate 'people who could be reading books but aren't' from 'people who can't read books because one or more serious obstacles are in their way'

https://www.arts.gov/stories/blog/2024/federal-data-reading-pleasure-all-signs-show-slump

^ this is real

It is reasonable to be angry about it; be mad as hell!

But the thing about anger is that it's only useful if it leads you to attack the cause of problems. Shame and Scorn are not useful tools to get people to change their behavior: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/longing-for-nostalgia/201705/why-shaming-doesnt-work

https://devonprice.medium.com/why-shame-doesnt-work-906727dbad0f

If there are people in your immediate auspices who could be reading books but aren't, ask them why. Maybe offer assistance. Maybe recommend some books to them.

You keep going to a hypothetical person who wants to read books but just can’t because of circumstances out of their control. That is not who this post is about. It’s about people who can very well pick up a book and start reading but choose not to.

The majority of adults in America are not in that position. America is not a nation comprised of hobbled masses but a nation where the majority of adults are better off than the majority of the world.

'The majority of adults in America are not in that position.' is an assertion. You are ALSO going to hypothetical people - these people who you assert could be reading and just aren't. They are not less hypothetical than people who want to read but just can't.

Can you show evidence that the hypothetical people you're talking about are more common than the hypothetical people I'm talking about?

Have you looked into why people don't want to read books?

ETA: others HAVE looked into it

The Average American spends three hours watching streamed media.

So. Therapy is my first answer, because this is a pretty loaded topic and I am but a little guy on the internet who does not have all the answers. Not that a therapist will have all the answers but they generally get you thinking about the right questions.

Not only do I not have all the answers but I literally grew up roaming around in the sex shop my mom worked in, I cannot relate to this and I’m not more enlightened because my upbringing let me be super chill about sex topics.

But in general, familiarity breed contempt apathy. If you’re rarely around sexual content, or naked people, or sex toys then your brain has an easier time making a big deal over it.

Focus on areas you want to be more chill and think of ways you can be around that more. Maybe you take a regular spin around the local sex shop. Maybe you sit and watch a strip show. Read some smut, watch some porn. Maybe you check out an indie porn festival and watch a lady stuff sixty nine small plastic polar bears into a seventy year old man’s foreskin.

“What if they regret it when they’re grown up?” Irrelevant, it will have washed out/grown out by then.

“What if they regret it between now and when it washes out/ grows out?” Then they will gain valuable experience about decision making and potential for regret, which will be useful to them throughout their life.

“They can’t get a job.” Irrelevant!

“People will judge them.” They’re a kid, people will judge them regardless of how they look.

If you say “It’s messed up that parents don’t let their kids play outside,” someone will come back with “Well, what if ‘outside’ is actually the word’s biggest collection of priceless glass sculptures, and if a kid broke one, they would be destroying priceless art and also bleed to death? Huh? What then?”

People are disagreeing with this because of “allergies” and “salon costs.”

Now. I ask you. What part of OP makes you think that we’re talking about the small percentage of kids who are allergic to hair dyes? What exactly makes you think that “Kid is allergic to the dye” is among the top 10 reasons parents are controlling of their kids’ hair?

And salon prices? In this economy? I barely know any adults getting their hair dyed in salons, let alone kids. What is this, the New York Times? Please. We’re obviously talking about manic panic.

You can't convert to an ethnicity

2. If you believe you are Jewish because your mother is Jewish you are basing your identity off of religious law

3. Ashkenazi is an ethnicity associated with Judaism the same way Italian is an ethnicity associated with Catholicism. Ashkenazi, Sephardi, those are ethnicities.

I'm a quarter Ashkenazi and zero percent Jewish. I'm a quarter Louisiana Cajun (Creole) and zero percent Catholic. Because those are religions, neither of which I follow.