Posted by one of my acquaintances that claims to be an ANCAP but also thinks Fucker Carlson has good ideas, and that trans people and poor people are ruining America. Also worships Elon. I hate these people.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    It literally can’t be reversed…

    Like, that time has passed, literally. Historically this is one of the ways society tries to self correct. Shitty times means less people have kids, less kids means less workers a generation later.

    Less workers mean workers have more power, wages go up, housing goes down, and they feel secure and have a “baby boom”. It’s not even unique to humans, other animals and even plants go thru similar cycles with resources.

    We’re just cycling really fucking fast these days, and it won’t take many generations for AI to actually be able to replace an average human. We kind of need to fix shit and hold onto it for as long as possible.

    I know it always feels like “this is the last fight” but we’re coming dangerously close to it actually being true.

    • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Reversing a trajectory (a speed and direction) does not require you to change the past. What a bizarre way to read that

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, you’re technically correct, which is the best kind of correct

        I should have said:

        The damage literally can’t be reversed

        Thanks

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m a firm believer that grammar rules should describe a language, not control it:

        This isn’t an example of how modern English is going to the dogs. Less has been used this way for well over a thousand years—nearly as long as there’s been a written English language. But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it’s not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule.

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less

        English is a peasant language standardized by Dutch printing press operators who could barely speak English and whose work wasn’t proofed.

        If something is completely nonsensical, we can just disregard it.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Makes scents benjamin franklin said its a pore mind that can not think of more than won weigh to spell a word but he didnt say anything about formatting punctuation or grammar to make things more readable

          I mean, I slip up, or at least try to write with a little style sometimes, but seeing consistent incorrect usage rubs me the wrong way. It’s hard enough to get clarity in writing, throwing out structure and “rules” probably won’t improve it.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            but seeing consistent incorrect usage rubs me the wrong way.

            Adjust your timeline bro

            The “rule” is incredibly recent.

            It’s more logical to say the “rule” has been wrong for 200 years than to say everyone was wrong for over 1,000 years.

            If you don’t like consistent incorrect usage…

            You’re on the wrong side of this argument

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I think you’re mixing up consistently historical use with consistent use in your comment.

              Also, chattel slavery was outlawed less than 200 years ago. Are you going to continue to keep slaves? The rule has been in place longer than you or your grandparents have been alive, I don’t think you have much standing on a historical basis here.

              • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                I have never come across a situation where the word “less” being used instead of “fewer” led to any kind of confusion. The “rule” is nonsense and doesn’t add to the language.

                I’m generally a fan of stricter guidelines to language to prevent it from losing meaning (e.g. if “literally” can mean “figuratively,” we no longer have a word for what “literally” is supposed to mean). But rules for the sake of rules (e.g. don’t end a sentence on a preposition) that don’t add anything to the language is ridiculous. The point of language is to convey information. If the rules do more to get in the way of that communication than help it (like “it’s actually fewer, not less” in the middle of a discussion), then those rules are bad and should be ignored.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Well, I’m sorry my scope for history included greater or less years than your preferred scope, I hope this doesn’t make you think fewer of my point.

                  Next you’re going to tell me you don’t care about affect/effect, and the dreaded alot.

                  • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    I don’t have alot of issues with either, they don’t effect me either way (though affect and effect are two different words with distinct meaning, but I don’t think having them as distinct words is necessary. Plenty of words have noun and verb variations). The “effect as a verb” should really go away, though. It only breeds confusion.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Also, chattel slavery was outlawed less than 200 years ago.

                Well…

                First off you’re acting like America is the only country in the world.

                Second, by this logic chattel slavery is a very recent abnormality in human history.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  by this logic chattel slavery is a very recent abnormality in human history.

                  So is the English language.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Eh, depends on definition of history

                    English was about 500 AD, which is most of recorded history, but on human existence.

                    But it evolved from proto Germanic like most North Western European languages, so it’s hard to draw clear line when it became English

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Literally first showed up in the 1500s, and it took about 400 years before it was used ironically.

                So yeah, I can get people upset that it’s used as a standin for it’s opposite unintentionally.

                But I feel like it’s more sarcastic usually, and the first use of sarcasm was the Illiad. So sarcastically using any word as it’s opposite I consider acceptable.

                Wanna do “bad” meaning “good” next?