What is Reddit's opinion of
Merriam-Webster?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
100 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
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:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
Edit again: if you call yourself an egaltarian instead of a feminist, I'm gonna assume you think "all lives matter" as well.
fascism
1 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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
>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.
That's not socialism. That's a welfare state with capitalism. It has socialist elements, but is still primarily capitalist. Your definition of socialism is misinformed.
We should consider ourselves lucky there weren't a lot more serious catastrophic accidents with nuclear power in the last 70 years.
At Sellafield, Britain's nuclear research complex since the 2nd half of the 20th century, a reactor core caught fire back in 1957. Radioactive contamination was released into the air through a cooling chimney, but it was manageable. The only reason this hasn't turned into an enormous disaster, is because just one single physicist insisted on the installation of air filters on top of the chimney. Everybody else involved during construction deemed it too cumbersome as well as unnecessary. His name was Sir John Cockcroft. Until the reactor fire, his air filter had been jokingly called Cockcroft's Folly.
Just goes to show how badly they underestimated the risks of nuclear power and how little they knew about how to manage the process properly. They were literally just making it up as they went along. Like a kid playing with a loaded gun, they were experimenting with nuclear power.
Edit: source
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.
>I've been thinking. I was always taught that we had to stay close to the church to reaffirm our testimonies so that we wouldn't fall away. It made sense then. But now I've been thinking, and doubting.
If you're doubting the message that testimonies based on truth are in fact fragile objects, which require great care, you are questioning the truthfulness of the church's message. This is a big deal.
>I should be able to take a leave of absence from the church and come back as strong as I ever was. In order for me to believe, I have to stay extremely close. Isn't that the definition of brainwashing?
It's not the definition of brainwashing, but it could be a feature of brainwashing.
Here's my first question: Does the church work for you? Meaning, does it in general bring you happiness, a healthy sense of identity, does it strengthen family relationships, especially with your wife? Can you basically agree with it's worldview and stance on social issues?
If the answer to those questions is yes, FULL STOP. You need time to think about what you would be giving up if you go down the rabbit hole which awaits you here.
The next question is, given everything you know, and your life as you're living it, if the church is not true, would you want to know? If the answer is no, you're done here. Go back to church and re-strengthen your testimony.
If questioning the church is going to hurt your wife, be very very careful here man. Honestly, I would personally have rather had a happy marriage and stayed in the church. But I didn't, and it led to a change in my beliefs.
Other commentors are going to tell you to read a certain document, which many here feel disproves the foundational truth claims of the church. I advise against any such exploration at this point.
PM me if you like. Take care.
>gold digger
>noun
>1 : one who digs for gold
>2 : a person who uses charm to extract money or gifts from others
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gold%20digger
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
This is the issue with saturation of news and hive mentality. The press is feeding on the Russia story and shows like Rachel Maddow are overplaying their hands breaking "news" like tax returns that really don't amount to anything. This gives the false illusion that Trump will be impeached "any day now".
The reality of the situation is that, as far as the public knows, there isn't a smoking gun yet; just a shitload of circumstantial evidence. Flynn's request for immunity over testimony doesn't mean he has the smoking gun, it just means that there might be some things that he may testify about that might lead to more circumstantial evidence in relation to this case, but might implicate him in some other unrelated crime.
Long story short, realistically it could take years before the intelligence services have a case that will impeach Trump. The Watergate scandal took about two years between the break-in into the DNC offices and Nixon's ~~impeachment~~ "voluntary, uncoerced early retirement by his own free will and choosing", and he probably wouldn't even have ~~been impeached~~ taken "voluntary, uncoerced early retirement by his own free will and choosing" if the Senate wasn't democratic majority. I expect this story to take as long, if not longer, to come to a conclusion.
edit: cleaned up for grammar, apparently I was typing on my cell phone using my feet.
edit 2: holy shit you guys are anal :\
edit 3: guys...
definition of "smoking gun" on websters: something that serves as conclusive evidence or proof (as of a crime or scientific theory)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smoking%20gun
definition of "circumstantial" on google search: (of evidence or a legal case) pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.
If you're using the phrase "smoking gun" to explain circumstantial evidence, it's incorrectly being used.
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-a-word-gets-in-the-dictionary-infographic
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depression
>(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).
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.
If the shoe fits...
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" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/antisocial
The second one for google is the same: "not sociable; not wanting the company of others." https://www.google.com/search?q=antisocial&oq=antisocial&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=define+antisocial&*&dobs=antisocial
and the first one for Webster's as well "averse to the society of others : unsociable" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisocial
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.~~
~~Sources:~~
~~https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal~~
~~https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personnel~~
~~https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/personal-personnel/~~
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.
> Enormity is for things which are both enormous and terrible.
Primarily, yes, but not exclusively.
>3. the quality or state of being huge : immensity the inconceivable enormity of the universe
>4. a quality of momentous importance or impact the enormity of the decision
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexual%20relations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexual%2Bintercourse
"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"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manage
>Origin and Etymology of manage
>Italian maneggio management, training of a horse, from maneggiare
>First Known Use: circa 1587
The title is misleading. MW isn't defining it as literally, it's defining it closer to what you're saying:
> 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
The Executive Washington Editor of The Wall Street Journal said on FOX News today that the Supreme Court pick was delayed until the American people could have a "referendum" on who they wanted to select the seat. Well, <em>by definition</em>, referendums are determined by popular vote. The electoral college has nothing to do with a referendum. And, as it turns out, the Democratic Party won that "referendum" by millions of votes.
So go ahead and blow up the filibuster. It will happen anyway on the next one, so who cares. Tell these treacherous motherfuckers to go fuck themselves -- literally. Because if we're lucky enough for the rest of the Court to stay in place through 2018, then the GOP won't be able to stonewall the next pick after they return to the minority, and it will be their doing.
Not trying to be rude, just want to help the translation. I can usually decipher bad cursive (probably because I have bad cursive too).
>preoscerl-washed and rectilener
It's pressure-washed and rectilinear, but no idea what he means by it.
>i offer you my giners and grafitt (??)
Fungus and graffiti (what is he on about). I think he means the bad (fungus) and good (graffiti) of his artsy self.
>umaculate core
vermiculate core (I had no idea what that word was, had to look it up)
>and the (??) across my skin
cicatrix. Again, I had to check to make sure this word existed. Pretty sure he busted out the online dictionary to sound smart.
>in exchange for your magnits(??)-rare r(??) and, your absidion-thich umbrage, for the paise of your storms steo(???) blanched about and the wilderness of its center.
Magenta-rare ruins (I'm pretty sure, no idea what her ruins would be) and your obsidian-thick umbrage, for the paise of your storm's steam-blanched shirt and the wilderness of its center.
>becoming my team
Be on my team, and I will be your champion
>give me your (??) and i will rut your everything
Give me your evenings (still not sure about this one) and I will rub your everything (gross)
Everything else looks right.
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro+bono
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.
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.
EDIT: People's
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?
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:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savage 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...
Singular they is totally a thing. It's been around basically forever in English as we know as a pronoun for when an individual's gender is unknown or irrelevant. In the case of aetherborn, who have no gender, there's nothing more appropriate (except, perhaps, the dehumanizing "it"). Given, of course, the growing acceptance of "they" as a pronoun for nonbinary people, it's obvious why Wizards decided to avoid "it."
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 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reverse
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
The name "fall" actually predates American colonization https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/autumn-vs-fall
> Names for the season didn't just end with autumn, however. Poets continued to be wowed by the changes autumn brought, and in time, the phrase "the fall of the leaves" came to be associated with the season. This was shortened in the 1600s to fall.
I'm not saying no automaker has ever attempted to classify a 4-door car as a coupe, but anyone that did is just plain wrong.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%C3%A9
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?id=C5725200
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/coupe
(And damn near any other place you can look)
META -
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".
This is interesting. He did take a second before he said Syria. He said.
"The main goal of the US is two fold. It's one, to destabilize . . . Syria. Uh. Destabilize the conflict there."
It does seem like a Freudian slip lol. But what does this mean.
Destabilize: "To make unstable, to cause (as a government) to be incapable of functioning or surviving."
Freudian Slip: " A slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind."
If they are really trying to 'destabilize Syria' what is their end goal? By definition they're trying to stop the Assad regime from surviving? I thought the US said we had no interest in regime change. Is this all different due to the chemical attack last week? I'm ignorant here so any info is appreciated.
If he actually did mean to say 'destabilize the conflict in Syria' then he's saying the US wants to make the current conflict between the Rebels and Assad to become more unstable than it currently is? This doesn't really make any sense either.
Or did he really mean to say the main goal of the US is to end the conflict in Syria but mistook 'destabilize' for something else?
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.
incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result
For example the user /u/wingsuit suggests that we are in the fighting stage and next comes winning.
However, we've also just ended a war that also began with laughing, fighting and then losing in regards to BU
In short, there is an incongruity between the actual result of an event and the result that /u/wingsuit states will occur
Lets a look at another word shall we?
Dictionary definitions, a cult is just the same as any other religion. It's totally fair to say that Mormonism isn't orthodox. Yes, it does have negative connotations. But we are literally here discussing some purely negative ramifications of Mormonism which benefit nobody, so a little negativity is hardly uncalled for.
As part of that community, BYU players should be self-aware enough to remember that they signed up to have competition denied them when they joined. They should also be aware that their beliefs are not shared by the overwhelming majority of people in the USAU and as such, it's not fair to try to force USAU to accommodate them to the detriment of dozens of other colleges, maybe thousands of other players. They know they are in the deep, deep minority: I have to believe that they know there's no objective basis for their beliefs, and indeed that (as I suspect is the case, anyway) there are Mormons in the world who do manage to get outside on a Sunday. The whole point of not doing shit on a Sunday when everyone around you is doing stuff is that it's a personal sacrifice. If you choose to make that sacrifice, you don't get to tell everyone else how to live their lives to accommodate you.
I'd be saying exactly the same if there was a religion which opposed the wearing of cleated shoes, and people were to try to force other teams to go barefoot because they chose to go to a college which enforced that particular aspect of the religion.
There is a wide gulf between tolerance and respect, and while Mormons are welcome to Mormon, anyone who intentionally hobbles themselves does not earn my respect by trying to bring everyone else down to their level.
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. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
People should start using the word figuratively when they want to emphasize that something literally happened.
Wrong.
> : 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’
Here's Merriam-Webster:
>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.
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
> accounts from the emperor's family
> The process started in 1850 (before the US Civil War) with a law that ended the salve trade
In 1850 Brazil was still capturing slaves in Africa by force. The end of that trade came only through military pressure from the UK. British navy ships started intercepting Brazilian slaver ships on the ocean. When Brazilian slavers saw the British navy ships approaching they dumped their "cargo" and let the chains pull the people down to their death.
Pedro II wasn't "just" 25 years old, he had been the emperor for 20 years. He had been granted full powers as emperor in 1841, ten years before he ended the slave trade.
> work opportunities for the slaves
After slavery was abolished, Brazil started admitting workers from every country. Germany, Italy, Japan still have significant colonies in Brazil. There are townships where Italian and German are spoken as first languages by many people. There would have been no lack of work opportunities for former slaves.
> 1) the active vs passive difference is minor in the grand scheme of things. You learned of The Thing and it didn't contain any electrical components. You want to split hairs, fine. Feel free. > 2) According to the MW dictionary, this is not an electronic device: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electronics > I would argue that this is an electromagnetic (or more accurately, an electromechanical) device.
NO. ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOT.
I wanted to cut you some slack here OP, but you doubled down on your ignorance and are spewing blatant falsehoods.
The difference between "no electronics" and "remotely powered electronics" is fucking massive.
For an everyday example look up RFID technology. Little card, powered by a short range EM field (eg, card reader), transmits a stored ID number in response.
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day/vanguard-2017-01-22
Definition
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
In this context, culture means "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization"
They are creating a culture that will be used to bully people.
First, I did not say intelligence, I said intellect. The two words mean different things.
Intelligence: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason.
Although the two are related, they are distinct. If you do not have a high capacity for knoweldge, you're going to have a very hard time getting a PhD. Someone with an average skill in using reason (intelligence) can get a PhD if they have a high enough capacity to learn (intellect) and are willing to work hard.
You commented that you knew a lot of people with PhDs who aren't very smart. Smart is a very loosely defined word compared to intelligent or intellect (having at least 13 different meanings compared to 3 for intellect and 9 for intelligence {which, again, was a word you not I brought into this conversation}). When someone leaves their keys behind we say, "that wasn't very smart" but I think we'd agree that your ability to remember your keys and your ability to earn a PhD have next to no bearing on one another.
So, I do not have the link you asked for because you're asking me to defend a claim I never made. And if you think you can earn a PhD without a high capacity for knowledge, then that is a different conversation. I still likely won't have a link for you because intellect is not something that is easily quantified and measured and thus does not lend its self well to being studied in the way you're asking.
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.)
Great summary.
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..."
>The main problem with capitalism is that a) people don't understand what it actually is
Exhibit A:
>Capitalism is two people trading value for value to mutual benefit, in the absence of coercion
You only described trade, which also happens under socialism and probably every economic system. Capitalism refers specifically to the private ownership of production of goods and services as opposed to socialism or communism which refer to public ownership.
You're right that we have a mixed economy rather than pure capitalism, but you also got the definition of mixed economy wrong as LawBot pointed out.
That was a kind of mean post, so I also want to say you're right about corruption being a problem and you're right that people blaming capitalism in general is a huge oversimplification. I think you just took some creative liberties with the definitions.
Prosecute =/= file/call/write/carrier pigeon a complaint to have an incident looked (investigated) at also commonly referred to as "pressing charges by a civilian" which usually ends up having someone prosecuted (actually having charges filed). Stop trying and go look in the mirror and give yourself a lecture to not speak unless you know what you're talking about as it was clearly already explained 6 comments ago.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/press%20charges
Like shit dude.
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.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literally
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalist
>globalism
>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.
Wrong.
.... 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.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gypsy
> : 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
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gypsy
> 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.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gypsy
> 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.
google translate
It has to do with the Arabic triconsonantal root of the world "Islam" which means "peace" or "pacification". Definition of pacification: > 1 > > a : the act or process of pacifying : the state of being pacified > > b : the act of forcibly suppressing or eliminating a population considered to be hostile > > 2 > : a treaty of peace
That's not the only definition of the word bigot
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
"Definition of bigot : 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"
He very clearly fits taht definition
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?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
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: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/he-or-she-versus-they https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
Mate white nationalists are white supremacists https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist
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.