Thread: When did we go from most people just inherently knowing the basics of English to most people not even knowing the difference between your and you're?
MetalAlien
Planet Killing Feet
Your right of course but you shouldn't let it ruin you're day.
I would like to throw in "rogue" versus "rouge." That one pisses me off every time.
- Platforms
thats how i learned to read i'd constantly read all kinds of books while growing up. now i don't really like it as much though guess i burnt myself out of reading
you must be a white supremacist
I imagine the explosion of the college education industry as an obscene way to make money hand over fist had something to do with it.
Had to dramatically reduce standards to make sure everyone with a pulse got funneled into taking out massive loans to go to college.
Had to dramatically reduce standards to make sure everyone with a pulse got funneled into taking out massive loans to go to college.
DonDonDonPata
Bridge Burn Man
I got burned out too for a few years. I think it's normal. I began reading informative / historical / instructive books on interesting topics — no fiction — and I enjoyed that a lot. It also made me hungrier for (good) fiction again.
- Platforms
well nowadays i mostly read manga off some website. I did start reading sherlock holmes though been enjoying that
Dr. Pringles
Member
I am one of those people who has a questionable relationship with writing English. I've always been bad at it. I remember learning the rules in school and just not being able to apply them properly. I went through school being pretty good with science and math but when it came to writing I was downright terrible. During my senior year of high school it was suggested I speak to someone about my writing problems. I was given a test, and the results pretty much stated that I have dysgraphia. I can read and retain all the rules and knowledge concerning writing, but I have a hell of a time actually writing. I've gotten shit about it almost my entire life.
I'm sure there are mistakes with what I just wrote. I probably got the subject, verb and object agreement wrong a few times here and there. I guess I'm just that stupid. Oh well.
I'm sure there are mistakes with what I just wrote. I probably got the subject, verb and object agreement wrong a few times here and there. I guess I'm just that stupid. Oh well.
Last edited:
You don't really come across as someone who can't master the idea that "you are" crunches down to "you're" and not "your."
Grammar is gay as fuck, so I don't care if someone uses commas wrong or didn't know if they should use a colon or semicolon, but when someone writes "shouldn't of" it makes me cringe hard.
- Platforms
What gets me furious when I, a foreign English speaker, am more capable at applying correct English language than, supposedly, English natives. The things I've seen ... And that when English is the kind of language where you can just fling words around and it will be understandable somewhat.
People who use "could/should of" instead of "could/should've", should be executed. Most insufferable behavior in existence.
teezzy
Let me have my wanks
- Platforms
Already responded to this thread when it was first posted but I put a bit more thought into it and concluded that the answer is 1920. Or 1848 if you want to go back to the start of the first wave of feminism that led to the 19th Amendment in 1920.
I made this chart showing US birth rates with key events relating to feminism/the emancipation of women superimposed as vertical dashed lines. Clearly, a major decline in fertility has followed every wave of feminism. I speculate that the Hart-Celler Act was introduced in 1965 to address the declining birth rate associated with the second wave of feminism by promoting mass immigration. This then diluted the pool of English-speaking citizens, reduced school testing scores (JordanN get ITT), and led to detrimental policies like Common Core which have only compounded the problem. Over a period of ~60 years, this has led to what you observe today.
What is interesting is that the birth rate has been somewhat stable since the end of the second wave of feminism, although still on a long-term decline. I don't know if this is because it was already at a terminal rate, or because mass immigration of high birth rate non-English speakers has offset a decline in native birth rates. It's not sustainable to rely on mass immigration to prop up your birth rates because it takes several generations to achieve cultural integration. In the meantime, you're importing large numbers of people who don't share your cultural values like free speech or individual sovereignty and who may be infected with collectivist ideals of socialism if not communism. And for what? So women can marry themselves to the government / a corporation earning 50k a year to make powerpoints instead of raising the next generation?
So, where to from here? What comes after the mass troon arc? Acceptance of pedophilia and an age of decadence (if we aren't already in one)? I really don't know but I'm not optimistic. I think a catastrophic event that requires a resurgence of traditional masculinity like WW2 is the only thing that could break the feminist spell and get birth rates, culture, and productivity back on track. With what is happening in the world today, it's totally possible if not likely that we will see such an event in the next decade, and I think the lack of such an event is why there was no breathing room between the third and fourth waves of feminism. My worry is that if that event does not come soon and the fourth wave of feminism is allowed to carry on, Western masculinity may completely die, which would be a point of no return. It has been pointed out many times but there are a lot of parallels between what is happening in the modern US and the fall of the Roman Empire.
TL;DR Changing demographics caused by feminism
Perhaps this discussion belongs in World but I thought it was relevant to the question posed by OP.
I made this chart showing US birth rates with key events relating to feminism/the emancipation of women superimposed as vertical dashed lines. Clearly, a major decline in fertility has followed every wave of feminism. I speculate that the Hart-Celler Act was introduced in 1965 to address the declining birth rate associated with the second wave of feminism by promoting mass immigration. This then diluted the pool of English-speaking citizens, reduced school testing scores (JordanN get ITT), and led to detrimental policies like Common Core which have only compounded the problem. Over a period of ~60 years, this has led to what you observe today.
What is interesting is that the birth rate has been somewhat stable since the end of the second wave of feminism, although still on a long-term decline. I don't know if this is because it was already at a terminal rate, or because mass immigration of high birth rate non-English speakers has offset a decline in native birth rates. It's not sustainable to rely on mass immigration to prop up your birth rates because it takes several generations to achieve cultural integration. In the meantime, you're importing large numbers of people who don't share your cultural values like free speech or individual sovereignty and who may be infected with collectivist ideals of socialism if not communism. And for what? So women can marry themselves to the government / a corporation earning 50k a year to make powerpoints instead of raising the next generation?
So, where to from here? What comes after the mass troon arc? Acceptance of pedophilia and an age of decadence (if we aren't already in one)? I really don't know but I'm not optimistic. I think a catastrophic event that requires a resurgence of traditional masculinity like WW2 is the only thing that could break the feminist spell and get birth rates, culture, and productivity back on track. With what is happening in the world today, it's totally possible if not likely that we will see such an event in the next decade, and I think the lack of such an event is why there was no breathing room between the third and fourth waves of feminism. My worry is that if that event does not come soon and the fourth wave of feminism is allowed to carry on, Western masculinity may completely die, which would be a point of no return. It has been pointed out many times but there are a lot of parallels between what is happening in the modern US and the fall of the Roman Empire.
TL;DR Changing demographics caused by feminism
Perhaps this discussion belongs in World but I thought it was relevant to the question posed by OP.
Dr. Pringles
Member
This is actually pretty fascinating. It's funny, I've been reading a lot about the mass eradication of Hellenistic Greece recently. Their situation does mirror modern culture in a lot of ways. Their leaders tried giving financial incentives to the slaves and even said slaves couldn't make enough babies to keep the culture going.Already responded to this thread when it was first posted but I put a bit more thought into it and concluded that the answer is 1920. Or 1848 if you want to go back to the start of the first wave of feminism that led to the 19th Amendment in 1920.
I made this chart showing US birth rates with key events relating to feminism/the emancipation of women superimposed as vertical dashed lines. Clearly, a major decline in fertility has followed every wave of feminism. I speculate that the Hart-Celler Act was introduced in 1965 to address the declining birth rate associated with the second wave of feminism by promoting mass immigration. This then diluted the pool of English-speaking citizens, reduced school testing scores (JordanN get ITT), and led to detrimental policies like Common Core which have only compounded the problem. Over a period of ~60 years, this has led to what you observe today.
What is interesting is that the birth rate has been somewhat stable since the end of the second wave of feminism, although still on a long-term decline. I don't know if this is because it was already at a terminal rate, or because mass immigration of high birth rate non-English speakers has offset a decline in native birth rates. It's not sustainable to rely on mass immigration to prop up your birth rates because it takes several generations to achieve cultural integration. In the meantime, you're importing large numbers of people who don't share your cultural values like free speech or individual sovereignty and who may be infected with collectivist ideals of socialism if not communism. And for what? So women can marry themselves to the government / a corporation earning 50k a year to make powerpoints instead of raising the next generation?
So, where to from here? What comes after the mass troon arc? Acceptance of pedophilia and an age of decadence (if we aren't already in one)? I really don't know but I'm not optimistic. I think a catastrophic event that requires a resurgence of traditional masculinity like WW2 is the only thing that could break the feminist spell and get birth rates, culture, and productivity back on track. With what is happening in the world today, it's totally possible if not likely that we will see such an event in the next decade, and I think the lack of such an event is why there was no breathing room between the third and fourth waves of feminism. My worry is that if that event does not come soon and the fourth wave of feminism is allowed to carry on, Western masculinity may completely die, which would be a point of no return. It has been pointed out many times but there are a lot of parallels between what is happening in the modern US and the fall of the Roman Empire.
TL;DR Changing demographics caused by feminism
Perhaps this discussion belongs in World but I thought it was relevant to the question posed by OP.
When you're not getting mad about anime, you make some good points.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't watch anime.
Dr. Pringles
Member
Mountain King
Member
- Platforms
People refuse to use too instead of to but I could care less
Don't troll us like that. Are you just upset you didn't get your VR2 pre-order in yet and you're trying to make me wince in retaliation?