I think by that logic almost all words in every language predate the language they are part of. Like saying that our noses aren't really human because noses predate humans.
a neglected toddler
What do you mean by this?
As island-based languages go English is probably the least isolated in history. It's Germanic relatives are all nearby. Britain has had extensive links to the continent for the entire history of English and well before. It's an international language and has been for hundreds of years.
English also isn't that weird just because it got a large infusion of (pretty closely related) Norman words after 1066. Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese all have over half their lexical items from Chinese, an unrelated language.
The majority of the English language, it was only spoken by commoners with no formal education.
Literally never went to school or learned how to read or write.
Which is why it’s one of the hardest languages to learn, there wasn’t even a noble population who were helping rules be set logically, it’s a slang language.
Which is why it’s almost impossible to credit the English language with any words except for things invented by English speakers.
Other languages weren’t as bad at it
And it’s not a huge deal…
Until someone claims an English word has existed for 8,000 years unchanged.
Then it’s worth pointing out how ridiculous that claim is.
Literally never went to school or learned how to read or write.
You're describing every language for the overwhelming majority of the last 150,000+ years. English is not unique in that.
Which is why it’s one of the hardest languages to learn
It's not. English has a lot of irregularity to remember, but not the most. How difficult you find a language depends on your native language. English lacks things like elaborate case structures or grammatical gender which can be hard unless your native language has something similar. The 'th' sound is rare, but there are no clicks or tones. SVO is not the most common word order, but it's not the rarest.
there wasn’t even a noble population who were helping rules be set logically, it’s a slang language.
Huh? That's not how having a nobility works. Or what slang is. The rich aren't more logical, and they aren't concerned with making language easier. If anything nobles want more arcane language that takes longer to learn to better differentiate themselves from those with less free time.
It sounds like you're thinking of the prescriptive grammar movement where from the 1700s or so rich English speakers decided if it's not possible in Latin then it's uncouth in English, and started making up nonsense rules like no split infinitives or ending sentences with a preposition. They couched it in terms of being logical and correct but it was in reality a novel way of marking social class. And ~700 years after the English peasant/Norman aristocrat divide.
You’re describing every language for the overwhelming majority of the last 150,000+ years. English is not unique in that.
Name a single language that didn’t have an aristocracy that knew how to read and write and learned formalized Grammer for the majority of that languages history.
I didn’t read anything else you didn’t understand after that first bit tho.
I can help a little, but I’m not teaching an etymology class over here.
Name a single language that didn’t have an aristocracy that knew how to read and write and learned formalized Grammer for the majority of that languages history.
😂 I'm going to be generous and assume you're just trolling now and don't seriously believe this.
Name a single language that didn’t have an aristocracy that knew how to read and write and learned formalized Grammer [sic] for the majority of that langauges [sic] history.
You do realize more than half of the world’s ~7,000 languages still have no writing system, right?
Which is why it’s one of the hardest languages to learn, there wasn’t even a noble population who were helping rules be set logically, it’s a slang language.
Which languages had nobles changing the rules of the language to be logical, and beat the peasantry until they repeated their absurd shibboleths?
Proscriptivists have existed in many languages, English included. They’ve basically always been tilting at windmills.
Governments tend to be most effective at killing languages wholesale, rather than systemically changing grammar. And it’s something that’s been far more effective in the past couple hundred years as part of nation- building projects. E.g. the efforts of France, Italy and Spain to squash minority languages like Occitan, Galician or Neapolitan.
Ah, yes, that’s why the French still speak perfect Latin.
Yes, old grammar textbooks have been an incredibly important resource for linguists, particularly for reconstructing ancient pronunciations. They’re useful for teaching historians etc. Old French or whatever.
But we generally haven’t been terribly successful at beating students into using obsolete grammar rules and to stop using modern grammatical innovations.
Lax. Noun. “salmon,” from Old English leax (see lox). Cognate with Middle Dutch lacks, German Lachs, Danish laks, etc.; according to OED the English word was obsolete except in the north and Scotland from 17c., reintroduced in reference to Scottish or Norwegian salmon.
It’s weird in that lax died ~400 years ago, then was borrowed back ~100 years ago into American English from Yiddish-speaking immigrants.
It’s a weird loanword in that it was a loaned obsolete word that underwent some semantic narrowing in the loan.
Super impressive since English is only 1,500 years old…
I’m guessing you mean “Old English” since it’s sometimes said to be that old, but realistically that version of English has very little in common with English now (it was verb-second, for example, like German still is today). Even the post-Danelaw version of a couple hundred years later (with Norse borrowings like “husband” and even the pronouns “they/them”) resembles modern English a lot more. Middle English was largely due to the influx of Norman French (both morphological and syntactic changes), and the whole thing isn’t really recognizable as quasi Modern English until around 1500-1600.
Point is: language is a continuum, and a lot of these oldest this/oldest that claims in language just have to do with where someone is arbitrarily drawing a line.
Modern German for lox is “Lachs” (same pronunciation really, and spelling ultimately doesn’t matter in linguistics). This makes sense, because the English of 1500 years ago would have been relatively close to German varieties of the period. But doesn’t that mean “lox/Lachs/however you want to spell it” goes back further than that, perhaps to some earlier parent of both English and German? Yes, it likely does.
Edit: and yes, as others have said, that means lox is not a borrowing (vs. e.g. “husband”). Lox existed before anyone was calling English English. But that’s also true of e.g. pronoun “he” and a lot of other stuff: by definition, any word that is reconstructed in Proto-Germanic and still exists in English today is “the oldest” (but there will be many of them and they’re all roughly considered to be the same age, since proto-languages are ultimately abstractions with no exact dating).
If you have heard the word “intersectionality” but didn’t know what it meant, this gives us a good example.
Feminists will say that women are not treated fairly overall, BUT if you’re a white woman, you might actually have it better than a black man. And if you’re an extremely wealthy white woman, you might even have it better than most men. All the factors combine.
It also works in reverse. Basically a gay black woman might not feel anything in common with Mrs. Walton, despite them both being women, and might easily see her as an oppressor.
Class, race, gender, sexual orientation… those are the dimensions that intersect in all of us. I’m sure there are more. Religion used to be more significant, I think. Ability. Age, perhaps. In some countries there’s a concept of caste. Maybe education level and country/city are also involved but those are not the big ones.
It just seems that class is the factor with the most effect. Also most factors are kardinal and limited, e.g. white>asian>latin>black in bigoted society. But wealth is continous and you could always be more wealthy. So it doesnt stop at being a billionaire, you could always be a 10billionaire or a 50billionaire and it will still make a difference.
Worth mentioning that wealth and class are technically two different things that happen to usually coincide. In the US the connection is nearly 1:1, but in some places like the UK there is quite a history of high class people struggling with wealth and marrying wealthy people in order to combine their wealth/class. I mention this specifically because “caste” is really just another form of class. It’s a form of class tied more to duty/work and less directly to wealth.
I saw a post once about how discrimination law doesn’t recognise combinations… so a company was found not guilty of discrimination against a black woman because they employ lots of white women as secretaries and black men as labourers, and were therefore ‘diverse’.
The single biggest difference in the treatment there is, is based on wealth: in other words, one’s wealth is the single biggest factor for discriminatory treatment there is.
Anybody genuinelly wanting to end the unfairness of descrimination on things which people did not choose would be focusing most efforts (not all, but the largest fraction) on ending or at least reducing that which is the largest and most impactful discrimination there is (and which is often a pathway through which other kinds of discrimination end up affecting people: i.e. a group is marginalized on some visible trait, so many more in it are poor, and then most of the actual suffering comes from the differentiated treatment dependening on wealth).
Instead, “strangelly”, in those countries with voting systems that enforce power dupolies, the mainstream “left”-side party (which alternates in power with the “right”-side party) will at most loudly rage against a few other discriminations, never against wealth discrimination.
I agree that class is incredibly important and yet has a chronic problem getting recognized. The American class system is more flexible and mobile than its European forebears but it’s still there. Wealth buys access to better schools, safer streets, more lenient judges, etc.
Race is also huge in America and a lot of people insist on burying it, too. Their belief is that even talking about it is racist - they still believe in the fantasy of “not seeing race,” where most of us have recognized that the true goal is for everyone to be able to have a distinct racial and cultural identity but not be penalized for it. Not for everyone to be stripped of it all and treated as blank.
Some people say race overrides all. Some people say class overrides all. Intersectionality says that they both matter, and that an extremely wealthy gay black man won’t have the same treatment as Mrs. Walton.
That’s the beauty of both ruling parties being 100% in support of the prison industrial complex. In fact, our current president even helped usher through the '94 Crime Bill, which keeps prisons nice and full for his golf buddies and institutional donors.
Remember, though, that people, opinions, and political landscapes can change. Yes, Biden was pretty shit back in the 90s, but it actually feels a little bit like he’s trying to move back in the other direction. Don’t gotta forget the bad, but also can’t forget the (attempts at) good
Remember, though, that people, opinions, and political landscapes can change.
Yeah, but Biden hasn’t.
Remember when he mocked ‘Defund the Police’ in his first state of the union address?
He’s an authoritarian. Always has been, and he’s been a reliable vote in favor of every regressive piece of legislation that’s led the country to this point, where fascism is becoming normalized.
Oh, please. If he was an authoritarian, he would behave like Trump or any other authoritarian ruler out there.
Remember when Trump was president? He would kick reporters out of the white house, or tear gas people in front of the white house for a photo op. He said stuff like “I totally won’t do this,” then the very following day, he would do that. His speech was divisive. Should I go on?
He’s had some policies I agree with, that move us towards a less police state level. I admit, I haven’t followed him super closely, he’s less interesting than things have been lately, but at least the federal decriminalization of marijuana and pardons (I know they were effectively useless, didn’t really do anything - we can get into exactly why) show he’s at least trying to do what constituents want, which is a far cry more than a lot of other politicians.
Can he, should he, do more? Yeah. But credit where it’s due, he seems like he’s trying to steer two giant ships - his own past biases, and the United States political climate. Both of those are slow and hard to do, so anything moving in that direction should be celebrated.
See, this is EXACTLY my point. We all get obsessed over the things of the past, and while those can help inform us of the present, they’re not actually the present.
Yes, he was a proponent of the RAVE act. That’s one of those “don’t forget the bads” that I mentioned. We can accept that, and also accept that he seems to have lightened up on that BS in recent times.
No one’s perfect, everyone changes their minds about things. You did horrible things in your past too, almost certainly. That’s not you, we can accept that, but for politicians it’s this unchanging thing - you supported one thing, you will always continue supporting that thing.
Let people grow. Let ideas be brought up, and shot down. Let mistakes be in the past, and start focusing on what’s actually happening in the present.
It’s not about “being obsessed with the past” it’s about paying attention to history, particularly a certain person’s history. Joe biden had not been even remotely interested in legalization/decriminalization until he started running for office. Joe Biden was already an old man when he pushed for enforcement of the RAVE act along with other drug bills, I can maybe understand his “concrete jungle” statements from the 70’s, but we are literally talking about barely over 20 years ago.
All I am saying is to be cautious and not too trusting, ESPECIALLY of politicians.
Right. As I said, you can use the past to color your present, but the thing that matters presently is present actions and, to a lesser extent, words. So, judging him based on his actions during presidency, which should show us either his current beliefs or, at least, his willingness to listen to constituents.
During his presidency, he’s been… Well, I won’t say stellar, but his actions have been more in line with someone who actually wants better, rather than someone who wants to cling to old habits. Again, could he do more, yes. But his record -recently- has been, for a politician, pretty good.
You bring up the RAVE act. That was 20 years ago. 20 of the most eventful years in at least modern history. Do you think someone is incapable of change for 20 years? I know I’ve changed drastically just in the last 2 or 3 years. I mean, yeah, he’s old, but I’ve seen old people change too. Might not come full revolution, change is slow, but again - any progress is worth acknowledging and celebrating.
Is there something he’s done during his presidency that leads you to believe he’s still got those same values from prior? We can talk efficacy of some of his planned solutions, and some of his lack of a spine, but I think overall his actions are consistent with his words, in this regard.
I agree with you for the most part, but at the end of the day, you have to take someone in power action by action. Everyone who has ever held office has pretty much done at least one or two good things for their community. I’m not saying that I’m totally anti Joe Biden, but I think that he (like all politicians) can be full of shit sometimes. Remember back when he got elected, he proceeded to undo everything trump did about border control and even made that a big part of his campaign? As of late, he has slowly been reimplementing those policies. I think Biden is someone who rides off emotion and public feedback in relation to followers of his party, which can be a good thing but it can also be a bad thing.
People change as the issues become more apparent, when Obama was elected he said he “Respected the LGBT Community” but firmly believed “Marriage is between a man and a woman”
This same president gave us Gay Marriage in all 50 states
sure. hold humanity hostage because you can’t get exactly what you want, traitor. i’m not going to kiss your ass to vote for practical results. if you’re too blind to see what you’re doing, you can live with the consequences. i have a feeling you have a lot more time left on this planet than i do, junior.
In a two party system, voting third party will only ever result in your vote being thrown out. It is taking a stand against reality for the sake of your own personal idealism.
A lot of left-aligned voters learned that lesson the hard way in 2016. If you didn’t learn the lesson, you either weren’t paying attention or your idealism is more important to you than the actual outcome of the vote.
Doing that willingly, despite (or maybe because) the rest of your side screaming at you not to fuck this up again, is absolutely a level of betrayal.
Yea OK, just keep voting for same parties over and over again. Let’s just maintain the shitty status quo where nothing really gets better regardless of who is in office!
You consent to all these issues with your vote for Dems. I on the other hand will express democracy by voting for a candidate that opposes this: Jill Stein.
i’m not going to argue with you. i can see from your comment history that you’re a lost cause. you are damning people to consequences they don’t deserve, which makes you no different from conservatives. you are effectively the enemy and deserve to be treated the same.
this is me telling you to pull your head out of your ass and think about consequences. stop replying to me. i have nothing more to say to you, traitor.
nah. my vote doesn’t mean that. what a very dumb thing to say, traitor.
It literally does whether you want to accept it or not. We provide money and weapons to bomb children, you vote in support of the president doing this.
lol. you’re fucking delusional, traitor.
The only traitor here is you voting for corporate fascism, willfully voting in support of the rich.
They aren’t equal. They’re both shit, but they aren’t equal. And I don’t know about you, but I’d rather keep my right to vote, which is under threat thanks to the likes of Trump.
Instead build a better party instead of complaining.
Not seeing anything you’ve built. All I see is you complaining about Biden and Trump.
If you want better, we need electoral reform. Our current system is mathematically biased against third parties.
How do you think you get electoral reform? Because the democrats sure as hell are never gonna give it to you if you keep voting for their garbage bottom of the barrel candidates. American politics really are a shit show, you’re trying to act like you’re the reasonable one but getting so damn belligerent.
Mass protests, general strikes, voting in progressives that actually stand a chance, etc.
Because the democrats sure as hell are never gonna give it to you
I know they won’t, which is why you vote in the primaries.
You know who sure as hell are never gonna give it to you? Third party candidates. You can’t make reform if you don’t get voted into office in the first place.
you keep voting for their garbage bottom of the barrel candidates.
Genrrallt you don’t get bottom of the barrel candidates if you actually work to put forth good candidates in the primaries. And a bottom of the barrel democrat with always be better than an outright fascist republican.
you’re trying to act like you’re the reasonable one but getting so damn belligerent.
Hey, if you don’t like how I’m responding, maybe don’t start with saying things like
Name one time when you havent gotten a bottom of the barrel candidate? Look what they did to my boy Bernie. He wasn’t even ideal but at least he had a shot and the democrats you’re praising tanked him. They’re playing you, intentionally holding up an awful boogeyman constantly and saying “if you don’t vote for our piece of shit we’re gonna give you the bigger piece of shit.” The only way to win is not to play their game. Maybe if they lose enough voters they’ll get the message but they sure as hell won’t if you keep letting them win.
Name one time when you havent gotten a bottom of the barrel candidate?
Summer Lee
I’ve voted for her at least 4 times now to get her into office and keep her there throughout the last few primaries and generals.
Look what they did to my boy Bernie.
I am well aware, and I’m pissee off about that too. It should have been Bernie for the last 8 years.
He wasn’t even ideal but at least he had a shot and the democrats you’re praising tanked him.
I think you don’t understand where I am coming from. In no way am I praising the democrats that tanked him.
They’re playing you, intentionally holding up an awful boogeyman constantly and saying “if you don’t vote for our piece of shit we’re gonna give you the bigger piece of shit.”
Yeah, I know they’re using it to their advantage. It shitty as fuck, and a direct result of our electoral system. They know that third parties aren’t viable due to the mathematical requirement of the spoiler effect being a part of our current system. So they use it to their advantage.
But there is the thing, under Trump, we may lose our right to vote. We might end up seeing a true dictatorship. He’s already floating the idea of a second Jan 6th.
I’d rather live in the current corporate run dystopia than an outright fascist version called Gilead.
The only way to win is not to play their game.
Yeah, I’m really going to feel like I’m winning when I’m lined up against a wall under the next Trump administration.
Maybe if they lose enough voters they’ll get the message but they sure as hell won’t if you keep letting them win.
The Biden campaign managers know they’re losing voters to this shit, they aren’t that stupid. They’re gambling that the status quo will land them the most votes. It’s fucking stupid, but they clearly don’t care about losing votes to this issue.
We have different standards. I couldn’t live with myself voting for billions to Raytheon and Boeing like you do.
Voting for a politician is not an open agreement with every action they take. I didn’t vote for billions to go to war manufacturers. I voted against Trump.
You could do that without voting for “corporate run dystopia” by voting green party.
Thus splitting the vote and landing us in Gilead, no thanks. I don’t want to get killed by the state for being LGBTQ+
I’m consenting to neither.
I’m literally not by casting a vote against it, and you are.
Gonna straight up steal from a different user.
“Voting does sort of make you complicit, honestly.
But guess what? Not voting also makes you complicit. So does voting in a way that has no chance of having an effect based on the current rules.
Basically, existing as an eligible voter, at least in a country where voting isn’t rigged (so like, Russians are off the hook here, for example) makes you complicit in your government’s actions.
That’s kind of a big point of being in a democratic society - we are all, every one of us, responsible for the actions of our government.
And if you don’t like that responsibility, I get it, I totally sympathize, because I agree. I hate that responsibility, especially cause I know damn well I’m not qualified to make those decisions. But I still am responsible, and pretending I’m not doesn’t change that.”
So bullshit. I’m assuming you voted 3rd party in 2016. You chose to vote in a way that had no chance of having any effect to stave off Trump. So you are complicit in Trump. You consented to Trump. And thanks to people like you, we are now losing abortion access. The SCOTUS is now openly debating if a president can have political opponents killed. The road of fascism we are heading down is directly a result of people limply throwing pissing their vote into the wind.
Voting for a politician is not an open agreement with every action they take. I didn’t vote for billions to go to war manufacturers.
You literally did, and are planning to in November.
I voted against Trump.
Same here, by voting for the green party.
Thus splitting the vote and landing us in Gilead, no thanks. I don’t want to get killed by the state for being LGBTQ+
Nope. Most green voters I’ve convinced have been non-voters. They are the biggest voting block.
That’s kind of a big point of being in a democratic society - we are all, every one of us, responsible for the actions of our government.
They just described why I vote green party.
And if you don’t like that responsibility, I get it, I totally sympathize, because I agree. I hate that responsibility, especially cause I know damn well I’m not qualified to make those decisions. But I still am responsible, and pretending I’m not doesn’t change that.
Yes, that’s why we’re responsible for building a better party, very simple to understand.
So bullshit. I’m assuming you voted 3rd party in 2016. You chose to vote in a way that had no chance of having any effect to stave off Trump. So you are complicit in Trump. You consented to Trump. And thanks to people like you, we are now losing abortion access. The SCOTUS is now openly debating if a president can have political opponents killed. The road of fascism we are heading down is directly a result of people limply throwing pissing their vote into the wind.
I’m proud I did not consent to Trump or Clinton in 2016, you did. Green have a chance because Dems and Republicans are terrible. You’re just a scared, disenfranchised little child that can’t make your own decisions. I am responsible for improving my government, which is why I’m building a better option in the Green party. You do nothing but whine and submit to fascism, pathetic.
Belittling people is rarely a good dialectical tactic, and speaks to your own level of maturity. If this is the type of discourse employed by green party supporters and campaign volunteers, I’ll be staying away.
Based on what I’ve seen of your post history here, you’re a combative ideologue who’s not interested in building anything other than ill-will, with seemingly zero desire to talk about anything that doesn’t give you an opportunity to aggressively proselytize. You seem to turn every conversation you have into an abrasive display of your moral superiority, repeating the same talking points ad nauseum while abandoning any points that shift out of your favor.
Perhaps you hope that you can activate non-voters with your accusatory, venomous, divisive rhetoric, but I struggle to see how that strategy will be beneficial should a Green candidate make it to the Presidency. Coalition building with the Democratic party will absolutely be necessary to get Green legislation through congress early on; It seems short-sighted to belittle and alienate those who vote closest to your interests on the political spectrum by equating them with those who vote furthest from your interests. Ideals are important, but game theory underpins all political action and must be considered.
Further, RCV does not require the Green party to be implemented. Many states have been experimenting with RCV (and other alternative voting systems) without leadership from the Green party (source). That trend has been picking up steam across the nation.
Belittling people is rarely a good dialectical tactic, and speaks to your own level of maturity.
Only in response to their claims, I am not “belittling” them, they made those statements themselves that they consent to “corporate facism”, I do not.
If this is the type of discourse employed by green party supporters and campaign volunteers, I’ll be staying away.
That’s fine, I’m targeting non-voters.
Based on what I’ve seen of your post history here, you’re a combative ideologue who’s not interested in building anything other than ill-will, with seemingly zero desire to talk about anything that doesn’t give you an opportunity to aggressively proselytize.
That is necessary considering how heavy handed pro-capitalist propaganda is. What would you like to discuss?
You seem to turn every conversation you have into an abrasive display of your moral superiority, repeating the same talking points ad nauseum while abandoning any points that shift out of your favor.
The truth is hard to accept, and I am not ashamed of being against fascist corporate control of our economy, regardless of how hard you try to make me conceed that. Now provide an example of me abandoing any point that has been “out of my favor”.
Perhaps you hope that you can activate non-voters with your accusatory, venomous, divisive rhetoric, but I struggle to see how that strategy will be beneficial should a Green candidate make it to the Presidency.
Coalition building with the Democratic party will absolutely be necessary to get Green legislation through congress early on; It seems short-sighted to belittle and alienate those who vote closest to your interests on the political spectrum by equating them with those who vote furthest from your interests. Ideals are important, but game theory underpins all political action and must be considered.
The Democratic party will not be there to offer a coalition. They spend millions trying to prevent Greens from even being on the ballot. Your “game theory” is wrong considering you used nonfactual inputs. The only path towards progress is rejecting all pro-capitalist actors, which will more than make up for it with support from the poor working class.
Further, RCV does not require the Green party to be implemented. Many states have been experimenting with RCV (and other alternative voting systems) without leadership from the Green party (source). That trend has been picking up steam across the nation.
Gaslighting at it finest, I never claimed the Green party was necessary for RCV to be implemented, only the Democrats will fight against it since it hurts their chances against third parties. The trend has been by ballot initiatives, not Democratic legislation.
Exactly what law do you expect them to pass? This is all Dems fault for being so garbage that Republicans even have a chance.
Yeah, a party that has won exactly zero presidential elections what a party you’ve built. How proud you must be.
You have to vote for them to win dumbass.
A man abducts you and gives you to choices: Have sex with him “willingly” He kills you, and has sex with your corpse Choosing the first option in no way is consensual.
You are truly deranged. In this comparison you could choose neither and vote green party.
Exactly what law do you expect them to pass? This is all Dems fault for being so garbage that Republicans even have a chance.
They are openly debating if the president can have political opponents killed. Quit living under a rock.
You have to vote for them to win dumbass
No shit.
But I am not an imbecile who thinks they can magic away the spoiler effect. That’s you.
You are truly deranged. In this comparison you could choose neither and vote green party.
Voting third party is equal to choosing the second option.
Biden supports RCV? Which Dem?
Get a grip. You’ve done no better to get RCV implemented. Your votes get you nothing, because you vote for candidates that mathematically cannot win thanks to the inherent biases of FPTP voting.
And RCV isn’t even that good of an option. STAR and approval are superior.
They are openly debating if the president can have political opponents killed. Quit living under a rock.
Hilarious. The rich have you figured out and are playing you like a fiddle.
No shit.
But I am not an imbecile who thinks they can magic away the spoiler effect. That’s you.
The literal only way is voting, it’s so simple it’s hilarious.
Voting third party is equal to choosing the second option.
Nope.
Get a grip. You’ve done no better to get RCV implemented. Your votes get you nothing, because you vote for candidates that mathematically cannot win thanks to the inherent biases of FPTP voting.
LOL so people who had power and proved to you they will do nothing to get RCV passed. Greens can mathematically win, you just vote for them.
And RCV isn’t even that good of an option. STAR and approval are superior.
Hilarious. Where have liberals been after 2016? 2020? The time is now, and you are trying your best to maintain the control of our government by the rich.
Am I the only one seeing the opportunity regarding billionaires? Of course we have to use a polar bear who is already dead so we don’t have to kill the poor thing to get rid of billionaires. We can start by leaking the rumors that when a polar bear dies due to old age its liver releases certain enzymes that make it extremely delicious. Also eating a spoon of that liver each day for a week has been shown to elongate telomeres and greatly reduce, even revert, aging.
Sure, tons of them in zoos. Well more than billionaires.
Tho I’d like to see them in zoos instead. Rare animal and all. Worth gawking at the way people back in the day would gawk at the strange “savages” from distant lands…
“Crazy cat ladies” (formerly known as: witches, spinsters, old maids, among others) have historically been women who don’t marry, and prefer low-key companionship with cats (who demand a consensual relationship, and won’t tolerate being imposed upon) and other animals, as well as woman-to-woman friendships, over traditional domestic duties as a brood mare and household servant.
The whole hoarding thing is a trope, as it can happen to men and women alike, just like all hoarding tendencies. It may be slightly more common in women because women are raised to be more nurturing and compassionate, and often taught to ignore the practical boundaries of their efforts in pursuit of perfection, but that doesn’t mean it is exclusive in any way.
But either way, “crazy cat lady” is highly problematic language, and if you care at all about such things, you may want to avoid using it in the future.
You’re way overreading what I wrote and pretty much replacing what I meant with something else from your own mind.
I just meant it as a well known example of hoarding.
I actually live in the same building as a lady who is crazy (i.e. has deep psychological problems, if I’m not mistaken schizoprenia), has LOTS of cats and even regularly feeds the local strays - quite literally a crazy lady that loves cats.
No need to go into your cultural assumptions and presumptions about some local stereotype most of which doesn’t even apply in my own culture.
I read on here recently that Polar Bears have lived through an age of no Polar ice. Which is quite encouraging think. I edited to paste link to article polarbearscience.com/…/new-evidence-that-polar-be…
No, no, no. “It’s extremely delicious to the hunter, and only the hunter, when the hunter kills the bear with their bare hands. Oh, look, there goes a cuddly delicious liver bear right now. Bon Appetit, Mr Bezos.”
Yeah no, it definitely does. Thinking about someone dying isn’t even close to the damage billionaires do to the planet and everyone who lives on it on a daily basis.
Having murderous fantasies about people just because they’re wealthy
How do you think that billionaires amass such wealth? Hard work? Proper budgeting?
The ONLY way someone can get that rich is by the exploitation of millions. I hope they get EVERYTHING that is coming to them—feet first so they can savor the moment. ☺️
Not all wealthy people, just insanely wealthy ones, so wealthy that it becomes an act of aggression against all the rest of humanity at that point. Imagine someone hoarding all the water during a drought, that is what these people will be trying to do if there is ever a drought.
There are much simpler ways of removing billionaires than spreading rumors that might convince one or two of them to try a new delicacy. And typically those methods of removal cost under 50cpr.
I feel like I just learned that Arizona didn’t prosecute anyone either. So it feels like the bad people are learning more about the process and how to cheat better. Pretty fucked.
I was pretty heartened to find out the national archives inspected and then rejected all of the false certificates sent in, so I’m going with the glass half full thing here.
I would have liked some convictions as well, but it looks like Michigan is looking to prosecute people, if I understand correctly. I don’t know. It seems like the whole prosecution of the false elector plot is still going on.
Absolutely. This just means less resources are required, not no resources at all.
Would you argue for stopping funding for reasearching and combatting rare diseases affecting only a small population? If you were to base funding solely on utilitarianism, you would.
I never said any of that. Just pointing out men in gay relationships are more vulnerable because men in general are more likely to become physically violent in cases of domestic abuse.
I am a victim of abuse. We had a kid too. The court handed my daughter to my abuser when she made false claims and I was arrested. All charges were dropped but the custody battle was delayed and made wildly more complex than it needed to be by the mother. Two months ago I was finally awarded sole custody. It has been so hard. To say male abuse victims have an uphill battle is an understatement.
He wasn’t weak like some bigots may claim. It’s just not that easy to fight the whole world alone. And he tried just that. A very tragic story that is really good to know to start untangling the problem.
If you want a good band that talks about that and are pretty aproacheable, IDLES is a good recent punk act with a lot of bangers. Search for them on youtube, their videos hit hard and their live on KEXP is fire.
My god, imagine if someone had seen it! Pearls would have been clutched. Gasps would have been heard. And from then on people would have been sex crazed psychopaths, doing nothing but having sex, leading to the collapse of the UK forever. Good grief!
This is because the extra lane allows demand to change. It is not congested so people feel ok building and moving to further out suburbs. This continues until demand has increased to cause delays.
Note that Houston and Paris have about the same population. Paris is 1/3 the size. They are actually removing a lane from their loop highway and planting trees, and turning another lane into busses only. Only considering transportation, I would much rather live in Paris.
I was just being facetious; I spent quite some time in Plano and around Dallas and I don't miss it due the whole commuting thing.
I had to drive to Houston now and then it was a miserable experience, and made me bitter of the whole Americana road trip thing.
That said, on last trip, we went somewhere down to Sant Jacinto (?) and I'll gladly live there. I did had some delicious crawfish that later vomited somewhere along the I-10 East freeway.
Edit: maybe I'm just mad nobody wears ten gallon hats.
Investing is public transport can be as hard or as easy as you want it to be. Sure building a full on subterranean high density metro system might be the utopia, but actually developing a high frequency, high quality bus route with dedicated bus lanes can be low cost and hugely increase the volume of people carried Vs the lane you took from cars.
Compliment this with docking cycle rental schemes, and some dedicated cycle infrastructure and you can transform how a big chunk of people get to work ...you start to win back the city from one which is built around cars and instead making it a city for people.
In Texas, and most of the places I know of, people won’t ride the bus, or the bike. When it’s August and the high temp for the day is 108, with 65% relative humidity, everybody wants to get in their car with the AC blowing directly on them, and be comfortable.
In my experience, every public bus I’ve been on has been miserable.
A modern bus on a hot day is like walking into a fridge in my country. They also look about 30 years newer than whatever I’ve seen when it comes to American buses, so that might help a little.
Isn’t that the same guy who is also part of the yootoobz channel where there’s an insanely rich guy who constantly blows his money on bakeries and baked goods, called “Mr. Yeast”?
til
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.