Yeah, saying “it’s the companies (that I buy things from) that pollute and not me” is like saying “I don’t contribute to climate change because I don’t cook red meat, I go to the restaurant and order a steak and they cook the meat. It’s the restaurant that’s destroying the environment!”
It seems to me that saying that someone does not neatly fit into the category of man or woman is accepting that “category of man” and “category of woman” are valid categories. Rather than fighting sexism, it’s reinforcing sexism. If someone truly believed that cultural norms about what’s male and what’s female was sexist BS, there would be no need for a “they” pronoun.
some cultures assign adherence to certain behavioural norms to that
Isn’t that sexism, something we should be fighting by saying “women can do that too?”
does not neatly fit into the category of man or woman
What defines the category of man?
While it’s true that the singular they/them has been used for a very long time, it was used in a very narrow context. It was used almost exclusively for an unknown person, or a theoretical person. In your example, the suspect is unknown, if it was known that it was a male suspect or a female suspect, the suspect would no longer be as unknown and so the sentence would probably be changed to “The suspect entered the store, then she exited through the back.”
You can tell that it had a very restricted use because of how “themselves” was used. For example, “anybody who wants one can get themselves a beer”. That’s a singular construction, but in a way that it might apply to multiple people individually. There was no need for “themself” because “they” was always used for unknown or theoretical people.
Using it for a known person, especially a person who might be currently sitting in the room, is a brand new and confusing use. Now, it’s not like English doesn’t have other confusions, even around pronouns. Take: “she was drunk and her mother was angry, and she slapped her”. Who slapped whom? Sometimes the pronouns alone aren’t enough and you need to restructure the sentence to make it more clear. But, the fact that the singular they is used with the same verb forms as the plural they can add extra confusion. Take a non-binary player playing a team sport: “They’re not playing well but they are.” If the personal pronoun version used “is” instead of “are” it would be less confusing in situations like this, but it would be more confusing in other ways because “they” could use both plural and singular verb forms.
It would be just as confusing if people suddenly started using “one” as a pronoun not used for a theoretical person, but for a concrete and actual person. One has been used as a subject pronoun: “One must remain vigilant”, and an object pronoun: “Wounds can make one weary.” But, it is always a theoretical construction, it has never been used to refer to a specific, known person. So, it would be confusing to start using it that way: “Give it to one, one doesn’t have one yet.” But, even that would be less confusing than singular “they”, because at least “one” uses singular verb forms, etc.
They/them for a specific, known individual is a new way of using “singular they” and it adds a lot of confusion You can argue that despite the confusion it’s necessary, but you can’t pretend that it doesn’t add confusion.
- Help the poor
- Healthcare for everyone
- Good treatment at work.
I like the idea, but I don’t think those are very well phrased.
Take “help the poor”. When you say “the poor” it sounds like you’re talking about a certain group of people who are born poor and die poor. Often the characterization is “the poor” are that way because of personal failings, like that they’re lazy. Nobody wants to think of themselves as poor, and they definitely don’t want to consider themselves part of “the poor”. So, even poor people are going to have a bad reaction to being told that we should “help the poor”.
IMO, a better slogan would be something like “Help people who fall on hard times.” because it makes it more clear it’s temporary help, and that it’s not their fault. I think poverty should be eliminated, and billionaires should be, ahem “eliminated”, but I think the average American would be much more likely to accept a social safety net rather than expected to continuously help “the poor”.
For “healthcare for everyone”, I think the issue is that it sounds like people are imagining high-end luxury healthcare for everyone at no cost. Something like “basic healthcare for everyone” is something more Americans would accept, and is more likely the kind of improvement you could actually get from American voters. Those of us who live in developed countries are used to the idea of “equal healthcare for everyone”, but I don’t think you could get that past the average American voter.
As for “good treatment at work”, what American actually thinks that they’ll get good treatment from their employer? Americans are used to thinking that it’s a doggy dog world out there, and don’t expect loyalty or love from an employer. What’s reasonable is fairness, so why not “fair treatment at work” or “fair treatment for workers”?
And if you do say socialism, say it along with something they like that isn’t scurry. For example, “socialism, like the fire department”.
Yeah, even an established creator is going to have a hard time moving their audience.
If YouTube weren’t a near monopoly it would be different. Then other companies would be competing for creators.
Making it worse is section 1201 of the DMCA. It makes it a crime to circumvent access controls. In the past, Facebook was able to grow by providing tools to interface with MySpace. People didn’t have to abandon their MySpace friends, they could communicate with them through Facebook, and Facebook could ensure that messages sent on its platform arrived to people still on MySpace. But, if you tried that today Facebook has access controls in place that make that a crime. The same applies to YouTube. Nobody can build a seamless “migrate away from YouTube” experience because YouTube will use the DMCA to block them.
The governments of the world need to bring back antitrust with teeth and force interoperability.
Removed by mod
You use another standard when looking at whether I’m lying.
Yes, I’m using your standard when looking at whether you’re lying, and I’ve determined you’re lying.
Now you’re lying about what I’m saying? Your standard for “lying” is that someone says something untrue and it’s hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you’re a liar.
Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying
And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.
Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn’t lying, and neither am I
Apply my rules and we don’t know if the media is lying, but there’s no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it’s unreasonable to say they’re lying. As for you, who knows.
Your bias is so obvious
My bias? You’re the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.
You didn’t present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That’s part of lying, and I don’t dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You’ve presented no evidence to support that.
So, based on your rules, I can say you’re a liar, because you’ve said some things that are not true, so I’m just going to assume that you know they’re untrue and you’re lying.
And there’s the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false
No, your new standard is “vibes”. You have “vibes” that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I’m appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.
Russia claimed to have captured Mariupol on Friday in what would be its biggest victory yet in its war with Ukraine
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-1.6460410
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Friday that Ukraine was working on
According to the Ukrainian Air Force, Russia deployed 368 aerial weapons, including 352 attack drones
Iran says it launched an attack on United States forces at Al Udeid Air Base.
Russia claimed on Sunday that its forces had reached the border of Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region
President Biden claimed former President Trump was “exaggerating” and “lying” about the crisis at the southern border during the first presidential debate.
They report on Russia and Iran’s claims exactly the same way they report on anyone else’s claims.
It’s literally the most common answer on stackexchange.
An impossible standard of evidence? You think proving someone lied is impossible? And yet, despite knowing you can’t prove it, you want to throw around accusations that someone lied.
In that case, you’re a liar. I don’t need to prove it, because proving someone lied is impossible. I can just say you lied and then call it done.
So, are you admitting you can’t actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?
I never made any claims about Putin. You, however, did make claims about the media. Back up your claims.
See, that’s the thing. If you take a charitable interpretation of what he’s attempting to say, it still doesn’t make sense.
You paste a full file from a project into Grok and it “will fix it for you!”
If you gave me, a human, a file and asked me to fix it, before I did anything else, I’d ask you “ok, what’s wrong with it?” Any human who didn’t and just dove right into trying to fix it would often just give you a “working” program that still didn’t do what you actually wanted. Sure, sometimes the answer is obvious, it doesn’t compile, or it generates unexpected errors. But, often when you hear the answer, the response is “ah, well, I think you’ve overlooked something when thinking about the problem, have you considered X and Y?”