I thought all it means is that women should have equal rights and opportunities as men. I consider myself a feminist.
Edit: or everyone saying I'm an egaltarian or whatever:
Edit again: if you call yourself an egaltarian instead of a feminist, I'm gonna assume you think "all lives matter" as well.
fascism : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>Is irregardless a word?
>Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
Irregardless how you feel about the word, it is a word.
People people... Please. You are all rushing to conclusions saying this letter means he's not an alcoholic. Perhaps if you were of more sober mind you would see that's its likely not what was meant.
>1 : one who digs for gold
>2 : a person who uses charm to extract money or gifts from others
Maybe if you spent two seconds using google you wouldn't look like a "retart".
According to Merriam Webster:
>1: a young female horse usually of less than four years
>2: a young woman : girl
>3: that which is born from a neckbeard and an imaginary pony from a show for little girls : abomination
Small detail I just noticed on a rewatch. The malware removal tool is called "shrive" which is a term meaning to hear a confession and assign penance for a wrongdoing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shrive
Google actually use Oxford's dictionary, So google didn't alter the meaning, Oxford did. Oxford is more pro-sjw and Webster is more anti-sjw.
Defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought."
Since the Death Eaters were attacking Hogwarts and the students, Neville was acting in the defense of himself and others, so I'd say the distinction between kill and murder is definitely applicable here.
> but you should know that "Act of God" is commonly used to refer to an "Accident"--something beyond human control, such as natural disasters, or anomaly mechanical failures.
Your source only mentions natural disasters, not mechanical failure as you claim. Several other sources, like the Cornell Law Library and Webster's Dictionary, confirm this.
Perry made the comments two weeks later. What, did he think there may have been a hurricane that no one had noticed?
Edit: People are questioning how Perry used the term "act of god". Here he is in his own words:
> Asked what he meant by the phrase, Perry said, “Here's what I want you to do. I want you to go look it up, the definition, in the dictionary. I meant exactly what Webster's says by that."
Not sure how people don't know this, but general sadness is literally part of the dictionary definition of depression.
In fact, I think this colloquial sense predates the clinical definition.
>(1) : a state of feeling sad : dejection <anger, anxiety, and depression>
The clinical sense is not the only definition, just the most prominent one these days.
>(2) : a psychoneurotic or psychotic disorder marked especially by sadness, inactivity, difficulty in thinking and concentration, a significant increase or decrease in appetite and time spent sleeping, feelings of dejection and hopelessness, and sometimes suicidal tendencies <bouts of depression> <suffering from clinical depression>
Temporary depression isn't an oxymoron, it is using a different meaning of the word which is every bit as valid. If you want to avoid ambiguity you can just say clinical depression to refer to the disorder, that way people won't misinterpret it as just a temporary unhappiness.
In fairness, another way to avoid ambiguity would be to avoid saying "depressed" when you mean "sad", but at this point that is still a perfectly legitimate and common use of the word.
Attitude Adjuster (Suggested by /u/davoloid and other various users)
It fits the naming scheme of the drone ships by being a name from the Culture series by Iain M Banks. There was also this creative reasoning from /u/manicdee33:
> Which is literally what it is doing: adjusting F9 S1's attitude from lazily loafing to being ready for transport.
"Straighten up! Arms straight! Chin up! Eyes ahead! Now you look like a real rocket! Ten-hut!"
EDIT: Also, via /u/rory096 in a reply to this comment:
> It's worth noting the aeronautical definition of attitude as well, meaning the orientation of the vehicle, for those who aren't familiar:
>>the position of a craft (such as an aircraft or spacecraft) determined by the relationship between its axes and a reference datum (such as the horizon or a particular star)
> For leaning rockets like Thaicom 8, the robot will be quite literally adjusting the rocket's attitude.
I hate to contradict you my friend, but anorexia actually is a medical term for a lack or loss of appetite for food, as well as a name for the eating disorder (anorexia nervosa).
That's not entirely true. The word means both. You can look at any dictionary, google, websters, Oxford, they all list two meanings here. The one you state as incorrect, as well as the one you say is correct.
The second definition for Oxford's dictionary is the way you say is incorrect: "Not sociable or wanting the company of others"
The second one for google is the same: "not sociable; not wanting the company of others."
and the first one for Webster's as well "averse to the society of others : unsociable"
Words are allowed to have more than one meaning or usage.
Could this be a case where the word was used incorrectly for so long that they just decided to throw that meaning in there? Maybe. I don't really know. But that doesn't change that the word is correct in both ways now.
My two favorite definitions to point out to liberals: McCarthyism and the actual definition of bigotry.
Out of curiosity, I decided to look up the various dictionary definitions to see whether there were any sense in which the statement wasn't just bullshit. From Merriam-Webster, "witness, <em>n</em>.: 4. one who has personal knowledge of something"
The world's population is larger today than at any previous US presidential inauguration, and modern digital & social media make the worldwide spread of information easier than for all former inaugurations with the possible exception of Obama's, so...it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...(forthcoming drinking games based on WHPS ~~doublespea~~ statements may kill a lot of us the next few years)
ETA: finished listening to the video of the WHPS. IANAPhysician, but sounds like that dude's blood pressure is through the roof. Wow.
~~Except he got it right.~~
~~Personnel refers to specific people like staff, employees, etc.~~
~~Personal concerns a specific person.~~
Edit: Nevermind the meme uses the wrong spelling. I'm either too retarded or not retarded enough, your pick.
Your definition of milk is wrong. There are multiple definitions of milk. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/milk
Also since almond milk, coconut milk and so on has been called milk for thousands of years, there is no logic in changing it now.
Since cows milk can't be called milk, since there are milk from other mammals too, and there are plant milk and so on, the only logical solution is to call milks for "xxx milk" where xxx is the milk source, such as cow and almond.
The alternative solution is saying that cows milk is the only milk and the rest like human, goat and plant milk can't be called milk, which is a bad solution, don't you think?
EDIT: woah, first time gold! Thanks u/harpingon!
The problem with nationalism like this, is that it tends to turn into jingoism, and people start getting into true Scotman arguments about what being American is about.
It sure used to, but that was decades ago. In the 16th century, "nice" meant "foolish" and "punk" meant prostitute. It's not wrong to use the new meanings though. Words change.
Check a dictionary. Today, "factoid" can correctly mean either one.
Technically, 'sexual relations' could mean strictly 'sex' definition Clinton used was technically not perjury which is why they couldn't convict him.
The lawyer should have clearly stated 'Did either of you have any contact with the other's genitals?'
Words mean things unfortunately and unless you are extremely clear, the person could say they were responding to one definition but not the other.
"1: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus"
Bill Clinton meant #1 when the Lawyer meant #1 & #2. ;)
I've heard that too so I looked it up really quickly just to make sure. Is this radio person you heard from the UK by any chance? Turns out octopuses is most correct, followed by octopodes, and lastly octopi.
Horses need someone to look after them full-time. Just Look at the etymology of the word "manager"
>Origin and Etymology of manage
>Italian maneggio management, training of a horse, from maneggiare
>First Known Use: circa 1587
Not to overthink it, but within the context "poker face" could make sense considering he's reacting normally in the situation and masking his true feelings. If he were to lack all expression and emotion it would give away what he's thinking, so his poker face was to laugh and smile, while not revealing his inner thoughts.
Merriam-Webster defines it as, "an inscrutable face that reveals no hint of a person's thoughts or feelings."
I think OP's usage was acceptable.
>Kinda sad that these folks have to go in on their day off to do pro bono work.
It is sad that they had to do work for the public good on a Sunday. I wonder if the person responsible for this state of affairs will ever be able to acknowledge that.
Emolument: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
Of course it includes regular business transactions. There is no interpretation. It's literally by definition. The People's Republic of China is literally leasing office space in Trump Tower. China is paying him. We have a PEOTUS who is obliged to the Chinese. This doesn't get more clear cut. There is no interpretation.
In all seriousness, though, research by Caspi and Herbener (1990) supports that actually people married to a spouse highly similar to themselves showed most personality stability while people married to a spouse at least similar to themselves showed most personality change. The parent comment stating that they'd choose personality compatibility over looks is wise. There is likely more current research, however I am not presently interested in searching for it.
Personalities change over the course of relationships, but not nearly as much as people think.
> Martial law? Sending in federal agents does not mean martial law.
I mean, does it not?
"the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety"
That's the definition of a Rumor.
An unconfirmed statement by an unconfirmed spokesperson, speaking about the unconfirmed actions of a separate organization.
Well, they are right about one thing - Trump is a savage, by the very definition of the word:
1a : not domesticated or under human control : untamed savage beasts
1b : lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings : fierce, ferocious a savage criminal
2: wild, uncultivated
seldom have I seen such savage scenery — Douglas Carruthers
3a : boorish, rude
the savage bad manners of most motorists — M. P. O'Connor
3b : malicious
4: lacking complex or advanced culture : uncivilized a savage country
1B, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4 all appear to apply to Donald Trump fairly accurately...
The U.S. Constitution defines treason, and its definition would be used in a trial:
>Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
EDIT: not saying 'overthrow[ing] the government' wouldn't qualify as treason, just giving exact constitutional definition that would be relevant in a trial. Also, it's best to start from the original definition than to paraphrase; otherwise, we risk a telephone-tag game of extrapolation, going further and further from the core meaning. It's up to the jury/judge to interpret the second clause and figure it out. Of course, if Trump is found guilty, get rid of the fool.
And yes, the phrasing of constitutional stuff is often frustrating to decipher. But the "adhering to their Enemies" clause would equate to supporting or showing loyalty to the 'Enemy.' So you could expect an argument to be made that Russia is not our enemy.
I am a white man that hasn't wronged any other race, yet there are times when I am being discriminated against. I was attacked by a group of African Americans for not apologizing when one of them bumped into me. When the police got there they said it was just another case of reverse racism... But the reverse of racism is loving or at least being nice to all other races. By definition reverse racism means absolute love of all races. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
No it's not a useful term, it's showing racism in a good light "oh, look at us hating those people for their ancestors hating ours."
> If California ever succeeded (it won't ever happen and is also a stupid idea)
The word you're looking for is seceded, although your way is also funnier :)
They need to invest in a dictionary or even a thesaurus. Doesn't matter how Spicer spins it, military as an adjective has a pretty definite meaning.
And how about, "Pedro is militaristic"?
'Schizoramble' is exactly how I'd describe that.
Also, the Latin phrase he had a stab at is 'in extremis', not "en extremis", and it doesn't mean "in the extreme", it means 'in dire circumstances'.
No, it translates to "temporary sadness" or something along those lines, just like it sounds like it would. Clinical depression is not the only definition of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depression
Can the mods clarify what is off-limits under the "no politics" rule, and specifically address whether the rule takes into account the difference between politics and policy?
I don't want to be argumentative, nor do I want to flout the rules. So, I want to make clear that I am asking because I believe there is a lack of clarity.
For example, are we allowed to discuss the effect that trade policy or tax policy or fiscal policy may have on the markets? I don't believe that such a discussion of policy is necessarily political, as long as it's not advocating for a specific position or trying to influence others to hold a certain view.
To give a concrete example, if tax policy changed and the USA abandoned progressive taxation and adopted a flat tax, would we be permitted to discuss the effect that change would have on our FI planning, as long as the discussion didn't veer into whether the change was "good" or "bad"?
Same planet as you.
Here (click on the speakerphone to hear it pronounced): http://www.dictionary.com/browse/yea
And one last time: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/yea-yeah-yay/
Nowadays, "yea" is used mostly in politics when voting, as in "yea" or "nay".
Constituency : the residents in an electoral district
If they live there they are constituents. Doesn't matter who they voted for.
Representatives are supposed to serve ALL of their constituents, and should be seeking a middle ground between both sides so that everyone is a little upset, and very few people are very upset. Guess what? A ton of people are very upset, because both parties have been doing a shit job recently. You had better believe that if they don't find their balls and start compromising they will start getting voted out, and then the other side will be facing down the exact same issue.
> But but ACHTKTUALLY the US is a republic not a democracy
God, everytime I read that I want to beat them with a hammer. Return to civics class and learn that word democracy has more than one meaning
I've heard a lot of people say exasperate when they mean exacerbate, which I never understood because they sound different and are spelled differently.
>to send or convey from one person or place to another
It's an older sense of the word but it checks out. Rebel scum was lying his pants off.
Hmm, people didn't get your pun.
There's a less used definition of the word "dumb" (the first definition in Merriam-Webster in fact) which predates the pejorative meaning most of us are familiar with. It means "lacking the ability to speak".
Same goes for <u>Esprit de l'escalier</u>. French speakers claim not to have heard of it, or at least in the meaning given in English.
Actually, in this case it is used [correctly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_miss_(safety\)). A near miss is a miss that was near to collision.
Wait. 'Throwing a game' means 'lost a game on purpose'. Didn't he literally lose a game on purpose?
Edit: Furthermore, as stated below the official definition of the word 'literally' says it can now 'emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible". Language evolves, I guess.
> There are literally no other qualifications needed to be PUSA
There's only 3 and somehow you still managed to get it wrong. The third one you didn't mention is be a resident of the US for 14 years.
Regardless, I'm tired of this trope. When someone says he's unqualified they don't mean he doesn't meet the requirements, and unless you're thick or being pedantic you should know that. Kim Kardashian meets the requirements but no one would argue she's qualified to be President. There's more than one meaning to the word qualified and when talking about Trump and the Presidency the meaning being used is a synonym for competent, not eligible.
You haven't been keeping up then. The word "literally" has had an extension to its definition:
>2 : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
>* will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins
Nevermind the fact that BLM was never started to say that ONLY black lives matter, but that systemic racism has made it so that Black lives, and lives of other PoC, don't matter in the eyes of many. And that ALM was started and used as a way of saying, shut up white people need to be explicitly included or else it's racist.
Stop licking so many windows. Go back to your demagogue worship subreddit and stop spewing your horseshit.
"White people are the ones who willingly shifted culture to equality" My eye. Tell that to the civil rights leaders that had to fight tooth and nail to just be allowed to live in a semblance of equality. Tell that to my brothers, sisters, and elders of the native peoples who still have to fight because every single treaty has been broken at one point or another.
Literally literally means figuratively now... sometimes.
People should start using the word figuratively when they want to emphasize that something literally happened.
> : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins
What is your source on that? Is that from the Oxford dictionary? If so you've edited it to remove any mention of right-wing.
Here's the Oxford dictionary:
>1 An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
>>1.1 (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
‘this is yet another example of health fascism in action’
>1 : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
>2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
This attempt to redefine fascist to mean absolutely anybody who is intolerant or uses violence is clearly an attempt to make the word meaningless.
Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Isn't the whole point of this post to show homage? Or just online points to make you feel better. Because if the former is the correct one, why talk shit to people when they try to correct you?
I can post links too 😀
Etymonline agrees with OP. Also, the OED is one of the most used sources in linguistics when it comes to etymology, I'd not be so quick to dismiss it.
Also, no they don't
Programming is definitely a creative process.
Webster's Dictionary's definition of <em>creative</em> states:
> + marked by the ability or power to create
Which leads to the definition of <em>create</em>
> + to produce through imaginative skill
And here we are at the very point of programming. It requires imagination. Not in the sense of imagining a painting or a poem, but in the sense of imagining the solution to a problem.
Another definition of create:
> to bring into existence
That's what programmers do all the time. They bring new programs into existence.
The person's definition of creative/creativity/create is seriously wrong. He/She should probably get a dictionary that equalizes that deficiency.
"Vanguard" is Merriam-Webster's word of the day.
1 : the troops moving at the head of an army
2 : the forefront of an action or movement
It turns out "hanged" is the correct term to use when referring to a person's execution by hanging, while "hung" is mainly used to refer to hanging inanimate objects. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/hung-or-hanged
Well, depending on who defines it, gunman can be gender neutral or just defined as a man using a gun.
I see some dictionaries do have gunwoman, but it just sounds weird to me (also, my browser flags it as not correct, suggesting gun woman or gun-woman, though those don't match gunman either.)
There is really no argument against this one. "Wet work" is in the Marriam-Webster dictionary for goodness sake.
"didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard."
"sounds like it will be a bad nite..."
Different sources say the word flammable dates back to 1813 or as early as 1655, and efforts to promote its use over inflammable beginning as early as the 1920s or 1950s.
It's pretty widely accepted that literally can be used figuratively.
No matter how precious you are about it, you're literally arguing with the dictionary and when it comes to word definitions, I think the dictionary is the authority rather than some guy on Reddit.
Maybe not the Catholic dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
Of the two of us, which adheres to a ritualistic schedule of worship and undying devotion to an unseen, supposedly all-powerful, being? You can call others slaves to whatever you want, but at least I don't have to tithe to the marijuana gods every time I smoke a blunt... Also no risk of anal rape from the "representatives of god".
Here is the definition of socialism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism):
>any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
VENEZUELA FITS WHAT I PUT IN BOLD. Socialism does not say that "wealth distribution to all must occur." It says that there is either collective/worker ownership of the economy and business, or there is government ownership of business. That is all. Venezuela has that, and they are indeed socialist.
And Venezuela DID get around to redistributing it and investing it back. 2000-2010 wasn't nearly as bad in Venezuela because oil was skyrocketing and their state was being artificially propped up by it. But guess what? Because their economy was centrally managed, it all crashed and burned once oil went down, and they haven't recovered since.
They even meet your personal arbitrary definition of socialism--inaddition to meeting the actual, real definition as well. They are definitely socialist.
Exactly this is the exact opposite of capitalism. This government incompetence/corruption. People don't even seem to know the definition...
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
>To retake something one must lose possession of it first
That's not correct. To retake something means "to take or receive again." Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Obama took the office of the Presidency for a second term at his second inauguration on January 20, 2013.
>Did you even look at the link I provided?
Yes, I looked at the google search page you provided (btw a search result page is not a legitimate source. You really should have linked to the articles listed on the page itself). There is a lot of talk about Obama discussing excluding Fox News from news conferences, but very little evidence of him actually doing that.
And lol - accusing me of cherry picking. I've now provided two videos of Fox News White House Correspondents asking White House Press Secretaries questions from inside the Press Briefing Room. What - do you think the videos are doctored?
Here's an article from 3/9/2009 that shows exactly which seat Fox News had within the Press Briefing room at the time (hint: second row).
Here's an article from Mediaite.com explaining just how the Fox News Banned from Press Briefing story is fake.
Now that i've provided ample evidence how just how fake your accusation is, it's time for you to do some research for me:
When was Fox News banned from White House Press Briefings? I want specific dates.
Which White House Press Briefings did they miss?
How long was the ban (if there was even a ban in place) in effect, since Fox News is obviously back in the White House by 2011.
> This explains a lot. I've always used the dictionary definition of 'globalist', which involves trade.
Wrong. You were misinformed about what the definition of 'globalist' was. It's OK to admit that.
>noun glob·al·ism \ˈglō-bə-ˌli-zəm\
>Definition of globalism
>: a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence
>If the right-wing has redefined the term to a synonym for 'traitor', then their reactions make sense.
It hasn't been redefined, and it's not a synonym for traitor. A globalist is an advocate of globalism, and globalists are people who believe that nation states are not sovereign entities and that more political power needs to be ceded to global and supranational political entities.
>They're still wrong, of course.
No, you are wrong, as I've proven by citing the actual dictionary definition of globalism.
>The dictionary defines 'globalist' as an advocate of global free trade.
There is more than one dictionary. I cited the highest quality and most well regarded dictionary in the United States. Nothing about trade. EDIT: I spent 10 minutes trying to find a dictionary that gave a definition that mentioned the word trade. Couldn't do it.
>Trump has appointed a lot of globalists, using the dictionary definition.
.... good grief. you've got it completely backwards.
> a member of a nomadic, Caucasoid people of generally swarthy complexion, who migrated originally from India, settling in various parts of Asia, Europe, and, most recently, North America.
> : a member of a traditionally itinerant people who originated in northern India and now live chiefly in south and southwest Asia, Europe, and North America
> A member of a travelling people traditionally living by itinerant trade and fortune telling. Gypsies speak a language (Romany) that is related to Hindi and are believed to have originated in South Asia.
> a member of a traveling people with dark skin and hair who speak Romany and traditionally live by seasonal work, itinerant trade, and fortune-telling. Gypsies are now found mostly in Europe, parts of North Africa, and North America, but are believed to have originated in South Asia.
I've sometimes wondered why I am a racist when I encounter these kinds of narratives.
I wonder where I went wrong when I was out in the fresh air, say chopping wood because it was fun.
I wonder how I could have gone so wrong as I am driving to work. What racism am I not aware of and should have prevented at such a moment I am thinking.
I get it that when I speak to someone who is not of my background that we're bridging some sort of divide. I listen and look for where, together, we might do something better. I know I can't be the end-all-be-all for an answer - I'm pretty much imperfect before ever meeting another human being.
Yet, I am a racist.
I wonder if I shouldn't just give in. Give in to the narrative and embrace who they say I am. Embrace that I can be a racist and not be anything more.
Funny. I thought that was what we have been taught was the whole problem in the first place as I was growing up. "Don't judge people by superficial means. Know them as a person."
I never remember my parents expressing a single opinion that I would now identify as racist, homophobic, or even class-based. I remember how expressive my father's worst moment was: he called someone a "fink". I was shocked to hear such strength in his vocabulary. I remember vowing then and there to avoid finks forever after. However, how did I end up such a poor outcome as a result?!
Who knew I was never capable of forming thoughts that weren't those of a deeply abiding racist?
Anyone for burning a cross?
By the way, where do you get one? Does Amazon provide the fuel and matches in their "People who bought a cross for burning also bought the following" ?
Bramble refers to the rough, prickly branches of the shrub, specifically. Whatever fruit grows on those branches is superfluous to calling them brambles.
You are technically correct, but the entry for "incorrect" would include the adverb form, thus "incorrectly" is still a word in the dictionary. The post never specified top-level entries, only words appearing in the dictionary.
This unfunny comment in /r/dadjokes has been brought to you by the concept of pedantry.
I'm one of those people that thinks that male circumcision is the current largest moral evil in terms of scale in America. Maybe I can give my .02.
I would do that, call it cosmetic surgery, except it fits the dictionary definition of mutilation. It is permanent damage being done to an appendage, unless you're aware of some way to return the foreskin to pre-removal status. It being mutilation by means of surgery, cosmetic or otherwise, does not mean it is not mutilation.
Now, mutilation is a loaded word, yes, and if it sounds bad when we use it, it's because we think it's that bad. Worse, actually, in my opinion. Mutilation isn't really a strong enough word to me.
And in circumcising a child, for no benefit (there are studies indicating some marginal effects, but these are methodologically biased in the same way that the studies produced in north africa showing the same benefits to FGM are methodologically biased), you are permamently removing a functioning part of their body, more than doubling their risk of ED, reducing their sexual response in the first place, and causing permanent psychological harm as with any early life harm.
You may not notice the harm in yourself or people you know, but, by analogy, it can be awful hard to spot a methane fire by a stove when the whole house is burning down around it.
And if someone believes in circumcision, they should have every right to choose it. For themselves.
Would you accept your mother or father forcing you to get a facial tattoo of the thing you hate most? I mean hey, tattoos have very little long term damage, after all. Or is that ridiculous because it wasn't your right to choose whether you got tattooed or not?
And if you wouldn't, why would you accept anyone's right to chop a piece of their kid's body off because they didn't like it?
The belief in tolerance of other viewpoints, the poison of modern society.
Edit: wow the brigade is strong with the the trumpets. c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see autonomy 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Maybe you're actually Russian and English isn't your native language, but "vote your conscience" is actually the correct phrasing in English.
Try to be less of a dick.
Nope absolutely used in the singular too. And you've almost certainly done it without realising.
For example: "Whose purse is this? Whoever left it better come back and grab it soon. They'll be sad if it gets stolen."
"I've not met my next door neighbour but they're so noisy! I can hear them stomping about all evening."
"Who's that over there on the boat? They're waving at us!"
No one would think you're talking about a group of people. We generally use it when we don't know the gender of someone, but it's totally singular and totally grammatically correct.
It's even been championed by dictionaries now who also talk about its pre 21st century use:
Mate white nationalists are white supremacists
Edit: Dictionary definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20nationalist
Not sure if your aware that the term "Liberalism" does not refer to American or any other Liberals. But refers to the majority of Western political beliefs over the last 50-100 years. It's a broad term that can include large amounts of conservative views and thoughts. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism for instance capitalism and libertarianism fall within the overarching term Liberalism.
Try getting a dictionary definition next time:
1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
Ah yes, the textbook alt-right response to charges of bigotry, cherrypicking the dictionary definition to make it either appear as just protesting against those with differing opinions or generalizing it to the point of banality, and disregarding the way it's actually used in common parlance to take the teeth out of the label. Let's check out the definition:
> a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
OP being a bigot would be hating and dismissing his/her neighbor for simply being outside of his/her ethnic/religious/sexual group, not peacefully protesting against a specific person who holds aggressively hostile views. TLDR; Disagreement != bigotry
I don't know what a scam is? Maybe, let's see what the dictionary says:
Definition of scam
: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
Well that seems to line up with what I thought a scam was, what do you think a scam is?
According to the definition this is a scam. They are listing an item without it being available for sale but establishing a value for it, then using that false value to entice players into selling their items for cheaper. They are using fraudulent means in a plan to take advantage of someone else. In fact, it's a variation of a scam that's been around for hundreds of years called "Pig in a poke" where false value is established and taken advantage of.
GGG should change their game over time as the player base changes, as the player base grows the infrastructure and systems of the games can and should change to accommodate that. This behavior makes the playerbase seem predatory, while as a community we should want to be welcoming to new players.
As a community, we don't have the resources to hide these types of players from new players or players that are not yet active in the community. Only a small percentage of POE players will ever come to this subreddit. And most forms of blocking by the community also introduces abuse cases such as witch hunting and false flags.
I am not confusing asynchronous with automation, you're making assumptions as to what I mean. An asynchronous trading system means that the buyer and seller do not have to be both online ad the same time (Chrono means time in latin). If they buyer and seller don't have to be engaged at the same time, then the buyer can acquire the item without direct, timely input from the seller. In most applications of this system (as I said) that means the item is available to be acquired at the price it is listed for which protects from price fixing scams such as this.
It's basically the premises of the the Great Awakening/Unveiling and the Great Deluge. Civilization goes through cycles of creation, enlightenment, and destruction. Each time further and further from conscious awareness we become.
The priest class survive in large numbers whereas the civilization is cast back into primitive development. Just imagine how primitive your great great grand children would be if the power went out tomorrow and never came back on. Slowly each generation "forgets" of their forefather's civilization.
Also, fun little tidbit. Look at any old dictionary prior to 9/11 and you will see the only meaning for "Ground Zero" was the place directly above or below where a nuclear demolition occurred. After 9/11, it has two means. Hmmm.....
Edit: Link for zee lazy people out there: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ground%20zero
Disenfranchise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
Just because 50% of the country was too stupid or lazy to go vote doesn't mean they were "disenfranchised."
That's not the definition of a protagonist. The protagonist is merely the main character of a story. You can have a protagonist without an antagonist.
>the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
These "protesters" have been attacking Milo all around the country, using violence in an attempt to silence him. That is the exact definition of terrorism. The only reason you're saying that it isn't terrorism is because you sympathize with the terrorists. You're on their side.
> Bold Face lies.
FAKE NEWS. It's actually bald-faced. Although bold-faced is a thing, but it's not the thing you meant.
But I'm mostly replying so I can be silly with the "fake news" reply. :)
I can't turn it off sometimes and end up looking like a pedantic prick.
I truly do not mean it and thanks again!
EDIT: LOL @ downvote for an honest apology. That's a new one! Not even mad...
> I have zero faith, I have absolutely confidence that CIG can reach their goal
You do have faith, though.
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
> I mean that the term feminist does not and never has been about equality in general.
>1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
>That is not to say that the social aspects should not still be fought against though!
That's kind of the point of feminism.
>When feminism takes up for men obtaining 50/50 custody, male only scholarships, male mental health, male suicide prevention, women working in physically demanding, male dominated fields, either including women or getting rid of the draft all together, women meeting the same physical requirements as men in certain fields (usually physical requirements in the armed forces, fire fighting, etc), among many other issues of inequality that are currently skewed in women's favor, then maybe I will reconsider calling myself a feminist.
As my other post explained and this post did earlier, feminism agrees that these are all bad things! Although, as my other post also explained, in some of these cases I think you're conflating "equal" with "identical".
Well, they claim that "gruntle" meaning pleased is a recent meaning, based on the obvious confusion. I won't disagree with that. But read further in the definition's article:
>The verb disgruntle, which has been around since 1682, means "to make ill-humored or discontented." The prefix dis- often means "to do the opposite of," so people might naturally assume that if there is a disgruntle, there must have first been a gruntle with exactly the opposite meaning. But dis- doesn't always work that way; in some rare cases it functions instead as an intensifier. Disgruntle developed from this intensifying sense of dis- plus gruntle, an old word (now used only in British dialect) meaning "to grumble." In the 1920s, a writer humorously used gruntle to mean "to make happy"—in other words, as an antonym of disgruntle. The use caught on. At first gruntle was used only in humorous ways, but people eventually began to use it seriously as well.
Moreover look up their etymology of "disgruntle", as well as their definition #4 of "dis-". All of it agrees with what I (and the OED) said.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has a doctorate degree in astrophysics. In 1994, Tyson joined the Hayden Planetarium as a staff scientist while he was a research affiliate in Princeton University. He became acting director of the planetarium in June 1995 and was appointed director in 1996.
Seeing as though the definition of scientist is (And I just did this for Bill Nye) a person learned in science and especially natural science, I would certainly argue that Neil is a scientist.
Derailment. In this instance, definition two of the noun is the one that fits this situation.
Edit: it's a derailment because at the moment, we are discussing women/girls being socialized to "let a guy down easily" whereas men/boys aren't socialized to take rejection nicely. It's a different topic than bullying.
Edit 2: Here is a good example of a differing opinion that doesn't derail the conversation.
Nonplussed is actually a contronym, meaning the word has two definitions that contradict one another. Another example is off (turn off the alarm / alarm went off.) Granted, nonplussed only achieves this in North America, but it is still valid to use it to mean unperturbed.
Just one of those interesting things that I learned not that long ago so I figured I'd share.
edit: enhanced my example.
Here you go...
Now you know.
You aren't talking about an amendment you dolt.
You are talking about repealing the Constitution because that document is what 'officially' gives the power of government from will of the people.
Exhibit A relevant text:
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A king is not power from the people.
> a male monarch of a major territorial unit; especially : one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life
Keep it coming cuck. Your post history proves nothing. I'm talking about your bullshit trying to overthrow the entire government and Constitution to enact a king. Get the fuck outta here with that nonsense.
'Snowflake' was originally used as an insult by the Confederates against Americans who campaigned ~~against~~ [in favour of] slavery. Make of that what you will.
Since you failed to support your statement let's start here
To defame someone with a false statement in print or broadcast
"He is a racist homophobe"
To damage ones character by means of false statements
"Milo is a white nationalist"
As a gay foreigner with a pension for Black men, I would dare say all of the statements are false and potentially damaging to his integrity.
But your retort of "no" is a pretty powerful argument. So I guess you have that.
Spezit: after reviewing your post history I regret an attempt at intelligent dialogue. So be it.
False. As Merriam-Webster explains, it is indeed a word. "Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
What are you saying? "The first definition in the listing of definitions in the dictionary is the only definition"? The "primary" definition of the verb produce is "to offer to view or notice", so are the meanings relating to creation and manufacturing less important?
For a non native speaker, that's seriously impressive.
I think she has it backwards about the extra /j/ or /y/ though for words with stu/eu. At least for the most common accents because it varies in both.
OED - /ˈstjuːpɪd/
Merriam-webster - /stu·pid/ /ˈstü-pəd, ˈstyü-/
Couldn't the same be said about 'a hot knife through butter'? Particularly because Merriam-Webster makes no mention of it being British? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/like%20a%20(hot)%20knife%20through%20butter