Tedesche

LOL, keep imagining demons, man. What a sad home for pearl-clutching recemongers Lemmy is.

I think you and many other people in this thread have this ass to mouth and don’t know which end is which.

No, your entire comment is in general ignorance of my point, which I’ve articulated enough times by now that I’m not going to do it again. Y’all can hide behind cultural differences as much as you want. Grammatical rules still exist and pointing that out isn’t racist. Grow the fuck up, I’m out.

it’s funny how you say I’m naive and then proceed to insist that your grammar rules are somehow more right than another’s.

Why is that funny? I fail to see how contending that grammatical rules are valid and valuable contradicts with the notion that you claiming “everyone has their own rules, get over it” is naïve. They’re not in contradiction at all.

While double negatives might be inappropriate in, for example, technical documents; there are a great number of contexts in which they’re quite common and normal. I’m not saying “rules” don’t broadly exist, but rather that they vary from place to place, culture to culture (including Sub and micro-cultures).

Nothing I said contradicts that. I simply pointed out that that’s no reason to disregard the rules of grammar.

By the way, you should look into the sorts of people who have historically agreed with you. Classists and racists. For example, Robert Lowth, who argued people sounded dumb, essentially, because it was illogical. Same with many of the grammarians in the US who consistently taught kids that ‘they sound dumb’ because they happen to have a colloquial dialect different than their own.

I made no such racist argument and for you to suggest that I’m racist merely because I pointed out that grammatical rules have purpose and utility simply demonstrates how little you understand the historical context you’re trying to weaponize and how eager you are to slander those who disagree with you as racist. You’re not winning yourself any real points for combatting racism, you’re just exposing yourself as an empty virtue signaler.

What do you find pointless about them?

That’s naïve. One can appreciate differences in grammar usage and take them into account when trying to understand someone else in the context of cultural differences and still acknowledge that grammar has formal rules. If you’re just going to say that grammatical rules can be ignored, why bother teaching grammar at all? Because as much as there might be deviations from the norm, there is still a norm, and it’s important there is one. One cannot appreciate jazz without learning classical musical structures; the existence of jazz does not negate that music has said structures, and jazz wouldn’t be jazz without them.

It’s a double-negative. Classic grammatical mistake that is sadly quite common in some modern parlance. Blame culture or the education system, but don’t make the mistake of thinking the person saying this is actually trying to slyly indicate they did do something while seeming like they’re denying it. That’s not what’s going on.

Remember: don’t use no double-negatives and don’t never use no triple-negatives!

Xenogears. 80-hour game, and that’s without grinding for everything. And, it probably would have been close to twice as long if they’d been funded enough to complete it. As it was released, the second disc began with a 2-hour cutscene with a save point in the middle, which essentially summed up most of the second half of the story. Amazing game. Like playing through an entire mecha manga.

I grew up rich and inherited my wealth and I’m still a leftist, so I know there are exceptions to the rule I just gave. I didn’t mean to imply that all rich people are conservative and it’s a function of wealth. I just meant that while many leftists on Lemmy demand the rich empathize with the poor, I don’t think enough of them empathize with the rich—particularly the self-made rich.

You wanna know what the best thing about my inherited wealth is? I don’t have to plan for retirement. This leaves me free to work a job that doesn’t pay well, but affords me the opportunity to help people less fortunate than me (community therapist). I don’t think enough leftists on Lemmy realize how many of us are out there. It’s the problem of a handful of bad actors spoiling things for the bunch. It doesn’t matter how many Warren Buffets are out there; a single Jeff Bezos sets the bad example.

But it’s the system. We need laws that prevent 90% of the wealth falling into 10% of the hands. We need laws that stop the richest from paying the least taxes. But we also need oversight committees that stop government bodies meant to help the poor from pocketing the money—something leftists rarely want to acknowledge happens. I work in public health and I know how corrupt the system is. We can’t expect the we’ll-meaning wealthy to give up their capital to a system that is designed to line the pockets of other rich people.

I think a lot of far leftists are relatively poor and would change their tune as soon as they earned a lot of money. When you experience success it becomes a lot harder to excuse or sympathize with the people asking for handouts. Success is difficult. Yes, a lot of luck is involved and successful people do tend to give themselves too much credit, but it still doesn’t happen without a lot of effort from one ambitious individual. When you know you’ve built an empire, it’s a tall order being asked to give it up.

You’re citing a problem with our justice system though. Yes, that should be fixed, but it’s not the same as justifying vigilante justice. This should not be condoned. The system’s inability to prosecute and convict should be.

As much as I take some degree of delight in this CEO’s death, yes, his killer should face justice. Vigilante revenge should not be allowed in a civilized society. If we condone that, we open the floodgates for all forms of reprisal. As justified as I and others may feel this murder is, the CEO still should have had his day in court.

You can’t rely on someone who is suffering to make a rational decision about weighing a very permanent choice with the chances of maybe someday getting better.

That’s just not true. People dealing with chronic pain can absolutely make informed decisions about their own healthcare, including voluntary euthanasia. Psychiatric and neurological illnesses could potentially impair a person’s judgment enough to bar them from making the choice themselves, but this notion that anyone who is “suffering” can’t be relied upon to make a rational decision because they’re somehow too biased by their own pain is pure idiocy.

That would depend on the person I’m talking to. Not everyone is well-suited for it. Generally, I recommend people find jobs that they enjoy doing most of the time.

Therapist here. This is correct. While almost any activity can be addicting, OP isn’t describing an addiction, which would involve distress in the absence of a particular activity, even when other activities were engaged in. What OP is describing is much more like the apathy/lethargy we see in depressed people, which often results in persistent engagement with easy distractions.

It was so traumatizing he had to go see Richard Dreyfus for therapy.

That’s right, bringing race, gender, and other demographic variables into it totally makes your argument stronger. It definitely doesn’t expose your own prejudices at all, no siree.

This has happened plenty of times in other countries. To think it can’t happen here is what is irrational.

I took this attitude the first time Trump was elected, and boy was I wrong. Not this time. Now, I’m seriously considering what his options might be for eliminating the election in 2028. He needs to clean the military brass of people disloyal to him, which he can easily do as Commander in Chief. Once he’s got a loyal military, there’s virtually nothing he can’t do; and this SCOTUS will let him do anything he wants, so long as it aligns with the view of Evangelical Christians, who have been wanting a theocracy for decades. He can conjure the specter of “Democrat corruption” to justify eliminating any opposition politicians as an official act, completely re-stock the FBI with loyalists to wage any legal battles he needs to make his actions seem legitimate and “official,” and arrest any problematic judges under the same “corruption” myth so that he can then replace them with loyalists.

Honestly, we’ve seen this playbook before in countries that are now dictatorships and Trump has already made it quite clear he wants to be a dictator. There is absolutely no reason to be convinced this will not happen. It might not happen, but there’s no reason to think definitely will not.

They’re all over the place, but I suppose I encounter them most in the news and politics forums.