sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
No bio...
User ID: 636
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3hr ago
I might push back on anti-prescriptivists by saying, many people who try to enforce grammar rules not a linguistic scientists, but people who are trying to enforce sense in their worlds. Therefore, they're not prescriptive linguists; they're not even linguists!
The point is that any particular set of grammar rules is arbitrary and in flux. Yes, double negatives are not correct in Standard American English, but there's no reason that makes them ungrammatical in Black Vernacular English. BVE has its own internal rules and structures in the same way that SAE does - it's not a free for all.
Of course the progressives take it too far and think it's oppressive to teach kids SAE despite the fact that it is way easier to get ahead in life if you don't exclusively speak BVE.
Uncharitably, I think this sounds like a general push towards post modernism, a pushback on the notion that there's any correct way to do anything.
There's quite obviously no one correct way to speak. I guarantee there are rules that you break that would have caused pearl clutching in previous generations. Everyone's a prescriptivist until it's time to say "up with this I will not put".
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3hr ago
Then there are people who just learn and use language incorrectly. "Let me axe you a question", "supposably", "could care less". There's a thing they're trying to say, it's language that already exists, they just heard it wrong or remembered it wrong or pronounced it wrong.
What makes more wrong to "axe" a question than to say "it's"? Contractions did not always exist and most languages I'm familiar with don't have them, certainly not to the extent English does. It's clearly the legacy of people hearing, remembering, and pronouncing "it is" wrong.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1d ago
Unless, of course, your users leave because they are sick of the ads.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1d ago
Advertisers and ads are in a constant arms race.
It's not notable that advertisers briefly got the upper hand, and that one of the biggest spenders happened to be the ad that played.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1d ago
However, the information booklet's text is not necessarily the same as the text on the actual ballot.
I'm not aware of any cases where the name of a proposition is different in the information booklet versus the ballot. Please provide an example.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1d ago
She decided to title one of them - Proposition 47 - the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" with an innocuous summary.
You (or whoever told you this) made this up.
Ballot title The ballot title for Proposition 47 was as follows:
"Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute."
Ballot summary The ballot summary for this measure was:
“ • Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses.
• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for the following crimes when amount involved is $950 or less: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks.
• Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender.
• Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk.
• Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K–12 schools, and crime victims. "
Quoted text above is taken from the information booklet sent to every voter.
The initiative was pushed by George Gascón, San Francisco district attorney, and William Lansdowne, former San Diego police chief.[20] Supporters referred to it as The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act.
That was never the official name of the proposition, it is simply marketing from the supporters and is not within the AG's remit.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
Wow, this is one of the worst things I've ever read and I've been reading this forum since the ssc days.
Owning up to having sex with a cow is a weird flex.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2d ago
Buying votes has never been this easy.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3d ago
Obviously it's a possibility. Anything that's not physically impossible is a possibility.
Have you interacted with many 81 year olds?
Is it more likely that Biden got whacked, or that an extremely frail 81 year old, possibly with a neurodegenerative disease, with covid, occupying the most stressful office on the planet, during one of the most stressful (for him) times of his administration, finally kicked the bucket? Or is simply too incapacitated to make a public appearance?
I know my answer.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3d ago
Agreed, in fact I don't know that the summer of love would even have been possible without covid as a preamble. The psychological effects of lockdown were crucial to set the stage, to an extent that I don't think anyone actually expected the outcome we saw.
I don't think we're going to see anything even close to that this time around.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
3d ago
Do we really need to come up with a conspiracy theory to explain the death of a frail 81 year old? They have like a 7% chance of dying within a year.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
This clip is the best evidence for "Biden dead" I've seen so far. Harris is even more sus than tricky Dick himself.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
Looks like our troubles are behind us.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
It's not too far from what happened to FDR, except that guy managed the media better.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
The House will have to vote in her successor as Veep
It's a ceremonial office anyway.
They also want her to earn the office of 47th President with votes,
Of course, the 25th amendment doesn't cancel the election.
I don't totally discount the argumentum ab vibum, but I don't think it's strong enough to keep a conspiracy going.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
I don't believe anyone believes that the 25th poses a threat to Kamala.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
If Biden resigns now it reveals the big lie that he was just fine this whole time, when it's clear to everyone who has been paying attention that he has been incapable of doing the big job for months if not longer.
Not totally convinced.
-
Biden recently said that he'd withdraw from the race if he had some serious medical issues: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/jul/18/joe-biden-says-hed-step-down-as-presidential-candidate-if-a-medical-condition-emerged-video
-
he recently got covid
-
it's pretty easy to say "well he was doing fine but now unfortunately his health has taken a dip, so he has patriotically stepped down from his post"
If he were actually incapacitated I don't see why they wouldn't just invoke the 25th for the same reasons.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
What would be the point of pretending Biden isn't dead?
If he died we'd get president and candidate Harris. Seems to be what everyone wants.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
Why not have Jill call in at least?
I can't imagine that would reassure anyone on the "dead Biden" train.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
This theory would require that the shooter was in on it and was directed to just shoot into the crowd rather than aiming at Trump.
Of course, we do have that photo of the bullet in flight before it hit Trump. One could argue the shooter was aiming near Trump, but why risk accidentally killing him? There's definitely no way anyone could have imagined that photo beforehand.
And why would the shooter follow directions on a suicide mission?
It really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
4d ago
It's definitely viable in many cases to kill (all) those who disagree. However it's possible that in Western Europe the dissenters had too many resources for that.
Let's keep in mind here that the claim is that it's incorrect to say "axe" instead of "ask". Reasons that boil down to "I don't like it" don't make it correct, because clearly there are people who like it.
Homophones are not incorrect. There are about a billion of them in English.
Looks like it's a tie game for it's vs axe so far.
As far as I can tell, "'it's' is lazy but 'axe' is ignorant" is purely mood affiliation on your part. Not to mention I don't see why laziness is a more pardonable sin than ignorance, if we're going to keep a ledger.
Your opinion on how well it flows doesn't make it incorrect, unless you're willing to bite the bullet and acknowledge that "flat" is more correct than "apartment".
That it's a mistake is what you are trying to prove, so you can't assume it in order to prove it. Yes, 'axe' is used among people who speak Ebonics - there are words unique to every dialect, that doesn't make them wrong.
Ironically, 'ax' is about as old as 'ask' (see Chaucer 'Yow loveres axe I now this questioun.'). In old English the word for 'ask' was both 'acsian' and 'ascian'.
To pile on the irony even higher, you are essentially making an appeal from descriptivism. "It's wrong because people don't say it" well yes, it's wrong in standard English, it's not wrong in every dialect because there are dialects where it is, in fact, firmly established.
More options
Context Copy link