domain:dualn-back.com
ThenElection
22m ago
Aks predates ask; it's the form preferred by Chaucer and the author of Beowulf. Ask is a modern degeneration enforced by London statists in their government building exercise. An unsavory task (or, more appropriately, tax).
Hyperion
24m ago
It's called hyperbole. Everyone knows what those words actually mean literally, which is why using them figuratively creates emphasis. It's not a lack of verbal skills, in fact it takes verbal skills to be able to encode and decode the hyperbole.
VinoVeritas
24m ago
But what about ‘white dudes for trump’
astrolabia
44m ago
Her message was a good sign! It sounds like a classic shit test. It's just a final check to see if you can stand up for yourself before she decides to date you. If she wasn't into you anymore, she would have just ignored you or waited for you to press the issue. She was provoking you to see if you'd show backbone.
A better answer would have been: "You're an adult, and you weren't that drunk. Don't play games.". I know this would feel like a 180 from your normal personality, but that's the point!
I once was on a relaxed second date with a very hot girl who was a little out of my league, hanging out in my room. I had had experiences like yours in the past and was expecting something similar. Almost on cue, the next time I tried to get her attention to talk, she ignored me to type on her laptop for 5-10 seconds. When she finally answered, I did something very unlike my normal personality: I warmly but firmly said something like, "You're being disrespectful, you need to leave for tonight." I said that I want to see her again but not any more tonight. She didn't even seem all that upset, and was a little shocked, but also almost pleasantly surprised. She came over again the next day and we had an intense affair until I moved away for school.
I know I must sound like an incredible ass, and you shouldn't take my word for it, but I'm normally an easygoing guy to the point of being overly passive. But I (finally) realized that you only have to show a backbone once or twice to make a girl feel comfortable around you indefinitely - but they usually won't feel comfortable until they've seen you do it - hence the need for shit tests.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
46m ago
It’s about persuasion because
White women supported Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016, 47% to 45%, Pew Research shows. In the 2020 election, an even higher number of white women, 53%, supported Trump.
You want the headline, “white women broke zoom supporting Kamala”, even if a chunk of those zoom accounts are fake (no one will ever check). This is probably why the “white dudes” group is organized.
HalloweenSnarry
48m ago
But you'd think that, if the game won on politics over quality or popularity, then he wouldn't have gotten booted--presuming, of course, that Greens tend to lean towards Palestine over Israel.
VinoVeritas
59m ago
Leaps and bounds my man
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1hr ago
It really seems like the elites are running very low on effective tactics for reigning in discontent.
Why wouldn't "brute force" be effective tactic enough?
HalloweenSnarry
1hr ago
Yet, there are those who wish to cross the Rubicon, to feed the flames and let the last cinders burn, until nothing remains.
Does it lead to and create societal problems that cannot be ignored by the general public, or does this kind of idpol stay "mostly harmless" until everyone pretends it never happened? My hope is that it's the latter. Society allows these kinds of people to eventually say, "oh, silly us" and we all talk about how dumb the 2010's and 2020's were. My fear is the former, which carries a risk in ending in actual ethnic conflict, racial spoils, and bloodshed.
If comfortable white people can somehow forever profit from these kinds of signals, enact laws and policies at the expense of lesser whites without paying a cost themselves, then, sure maybe this is how it all goes down. Quietly. A white nationalist's worst nightmare. If comfortable white people no longer engage in a charming guilt ritual and instead find themselves disenfranchised and destitute alongside the bad whites, they will no longer be afforded to see charm in guilt rituals.
The reason why I find that a more likely end point if we continue down the 2020 framing of race relations is that, somewhere down that road, America empowers real, Black Panther racial supremacists. If the nation empowers true believers of racial supremacy, then I'd expect eventually we see them act as racial supremacists. Along with the fact that, in my estimation, it would coincide with the empowerment of ideologically bankrupt thugs. "Well, those are the good whites, we take care of them" only goes as far as you don't actually empower people that believe whites have a debt in blood to pay, deserve all the pain they receive, are inferior beings, and so on.
I'd like to think that we did reach IdPol zenith in 2020, and stuff like this is fallout. That Kamala Harris' campaign immediately launches identity based zoom calls is gross and disheartening, but she's also a product of her time. We all are. It's a major part of how she got her job, after all. If you're worried about race relations as a risk stuff like this could be a real reason to vote against Kamala. Doubling back to reinvest in 2020'isms carries the risk it all gets worse-- more pervasive, more legal -- that seems like a sharper turn towards Race War, Now! Rd. to me.
I still expect we "get over it", or a large part of it, in the ~20 years range. Maybe we never completely dismantle all the scaffolding, because stuff like socioeconomic outcomes are hard problems to solve, but somes ways of thinking and memes may change. We might be able to start cloning Kmele Foster.
Anyway, another L for liberals like myself. FeelsBadMan.jpg.
ResoluteRaven
1hr ago
I agree with others downthread that linguistics per se is and ought to be descriptive, but that there's nothing wrong with having and enforcing prescriptive rules based on some standard form of a language. This argument, when it isn't a vehicle for fighting over the relative social status of different class/ethnic groups, mostly boils down to some people choosing to emphasize the fact that such standards are arbitrary, as opposed to the fact that we need them in place to communicate.
As for myself, while I have my own idiosyncratic pet peeves (proper use of the subjunctive is one I picked up after learning a few Romance languages), I've mostly gone from being a pedant to finding great amusement in deliberately provoking pedants and watching their heads literally explode.
HalloweenSnarry
1hr ago
If only someone could have bombed that moment with a drone carrying the Stop Killing Games URL on a banner.
It’s even more cynicism-inducing that you felt the need to pre-emptively hedge for such “cynicism.”
There’s a meme so old that it might had been a Forward from Grandma (or Klanma, as Reddit-types would claim):
"I'm a proud black man", said the black man.
"I'm a proud Mexican woman", said the Mexican woman.
"I'm a proud Asian man", said the Asian man.
"I'm a proud gay man", said the gay man.
"I'm a proud transgender", said the transgender.
"I'm a proud Native American", said the Native American.
"I'm a proud white man", said the racist.
Nowadays even the proud Asian man would come off as sus due to lack of ipdol social credit, unless he’s a west/southwestern Asian in Europe.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
1hr ago
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.
Redundancy: Axe already has a meaning.
Homophones are not incorrect. There are about a billion of them in English.
I suppose the contraction "it's" overlaps the possessive "its", and being able to tell the difference matters: it will almost always be clear whether you meant to ask something or hit someone with an axe, so this isn't a huge point against it, but it is a point.
Looks like it's a tie game for it's vs axe so far.
I very highly doubt that the legacy is actually people hearing, remembering, and pronouncing "it is" wrong, so much as being lazy and pronouncing it quickly.
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.
People who are entirely aware of what "it is" means might choose to say "it's" to save time. Meanwhile, "Axe" and "Ask" are approximately the same length to speak or write, and I think "axe" actually takes slightly more time/effort in the middle of a sentence because it doesn't flow as well.
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".
Nobody would ever use "axe" on purpose unless it's to fit in with other people who already do it by mistake.
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.
Momentum. I am not an etymologist, I don't know exactly when/why/how "it's" became a thing, but by this point it is clearly established, while "axe" is not.
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.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1hr ago
Isn’t this what winning is supposed to look like?
No. Winning is supposed to look like getting an increase in resources and abilities, allowing you to tackle even more difficult challenges, ad infinitum.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1hr ago
Is this supposed to be a reference to something?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1hr ago
Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a country where a leader rapidly and publicly executed tens of thousands of elites and things went well afterwards (e.g. the country did not descend into civil war and standard of living did not decline substantially)?
Well, the closest thing that comes to my mind is Indonesia under Suharto:
Under his "New Order" administration, Suharto constructed a strong, centralised and military-dominated government. What started as an oligarchic military dictatorship evolved into a personalistic authoritarian regime centered around Suharto.[14] An ability to maintain stability over a sprawling and diverse Indonesia and an avowedly anti-communist stance won him the economic and diplomatic support of the West during the Cold War. For most of his presidency, Indonesia experienced significant industrialisation, economic growth, and improved levels of educational attainment.[15][16] As a result, he was given the title "Father of Development".[17] According to Transparency International, Suharto was one of the most corrupt leaders in modern history, having embezzled an alleged US$15–35 billion during his rule.[18][19]
Suharto remains a controversial and divisive figure within the Indonesian general public. Many Indonesians have praised his 31-year regime for its economic development, rapid industrialization, and perceived political stability, while others have denounced his dictatorial rule, extensive human rights violations and corruption.[20][21] Plans to award the status of National Hero to Suharto are being considered by the Indonesian government and have been debated vigorously in Indonesia.[22]
From Wikipedia's article on the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66:
Large-scale killings and civil unrest primarily targeting members and supposed sympathizers of the Communist Party (PKI) were carried out in Indonesia from 1965 to 1966. Other affected groups included alleged communist sympathisers, Gerwani women, trade unionists,[14] ethnic Javanese Abangan,[1] ethnic Chinese, atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and alleged leftists in general. According to the most widely published estimates at least 500,000 to 1 million people were killed,[3]: 3 [4][5][7] with some estimates going as high as two to three million.[15][16] The atrocities, sometimes described as a genocide[17][2][3] or politicide,[18][19] were instigated by the Indonesian Army under Suharto. Research and declassified documents demonstrate the Indonesian authorities received support from foreign countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.[20][21]: 157 [22][23][24][25]
(According to Macrotrends.net, the population of Indonesia in 1965 was about 101 million, so we're talking about 0.5-3% of the population being killed.)
How many of those people were "elite," I can't say. And the help from the anti-communist side of the Cold War definitely played a role in maintaining stability while carrying out such a massive purge. But Indonesia did indeed grow more prosperous in the aftermath.
doglatine
1hr ago
It was called “The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States” and I found it quite fun. Jeffrey Lewis is a military wonk rather than a politician so it was mostly interesting from a miltech and strategy point of view. The Trump nuclear football scene was clearly tongue in cheek fan service.
Sloot
1hr ago
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. They're not just against prescriptive linguists, they're against prescriptive anything. In an anti-prescriptivist mindset, someone may use prescriptive linguistics as a cudgel to shut down alternate ways of expression, and (of course) enforce colonial and white supremecist standards on unprivileged minorities. This especially comes up in conversations about double negatives, which are commonly used in various low-class English variants, like ebonics.
Indeed, just another way to cope with the lower verbal abilities of non-Asian minorities :always_has_been.jpg:
See also: “Other ways of knowing” for a more modern example with regard to lower non-Asian minority test scores and academic achievement.
Who? Whom?, as always. It’s open season to mock rural white Americans for their accents and vocabulary, but ebonics are to be worshipped as if they’re channeling the voices of Shakespeare and Nabokov from the beyond.
doglatine
1hr ago
As an Englishman I’m pleased to hear it. We were this close to settling the Hundred Years War and then Henry V got dysentery and some peasant women ate ergot-infested bread and the whole mess kicked off again.
doglatine
1hr ago
Yes, I think affluence has a far more significant role in declining standards than DEI, the societal equivalent of “zero interest rates phenomena”. You can see similar declines in willingness to suffer for excellence in East Asian cultures (the “lying flat” movement in China, for example) and the decline in formal dress, neither of which are plausibly identified with DEI.
But I think this explanation also should make us wonder whether maybe it’s all for the best. Living has never been easier and appetites have never been more easily satisfied. Isn’t this what winning is supposed to look like?
doglatine
1hr ago
You can skip the opening ceremony, watch the sports that you feel best reflect athletic ideals, and skip the ones that don’t. It’s a tiny signal but a signal nonetheless.
Sloot
2hr ago
Novelty, I’d say.
There are few things like sashimi, the raw fish aspect. If I had to eat it more than once every two weeks I’d likely quickly hate it, but once every two months or so it’s a great change-up for dietary Coolidge Effect-reasons.
It’s also great for bodybuilding as a protein source.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2hr ago
-
Redundancy: Axe already has a meaning. It's primarily a noun, a tool/weapon that chops things. It's only a verb when you mean hitting something with an axe, in which case it's very much not very friendly to axe someone. Any language change that overlaps other meanings receives a penalty. I suppose the contraction "it's" overlaps the possessive "its", and being able to tell the difference matters: it will almost always be clear whether you meant to ask something or hit someone with an axe, so this isn't a huge point against it, but it is a point.
-
Efficiency. "It's" is faster and easier to say than "it is". I very highly doubt that the legacy is actually people hearing, remembering, and pronouncing "it is" wrong, so much as being lazy and pronouncing it quickly. People who are entirely aware of what "it is" means might choose to say "it's" to save time. Meanwhile, "Axe" and "Ask" are approximately the same length to speak or write, and I think "axe" actually takes slightly more time/effort in the middle of a sentence because it doesn't flow as well. Nobody would ever use "axe" on purpose unless it's to fit in with other people who already do it by mistake.
-
Momentum. I am not an etymologist, I don't know exactly when/why/how "it's" became a thing, but by this point it is clearly established, while "axe" is not. Maybe it was a mistake at the time when "it's" became a thing and if people had resisted it then we could have less ambiguity about "its" (and might be allowed to use an apostrophe like we do with every other possessive). I'm not sure. But at this point it has been established and people understand it and use it. The primary purpose of language is to communicate with each other, consensus is incredibly useful in that regard, so all changes are immediately suspect and need to have positive reasons to justify themselves. If the majority of people said "axe" and some people started saying "ask" instead, I would oppose that on the same grounds.
Surely they aren't literally exploding?
More options
Context Copy link