He also doesn’t care enough about the institution he heads to respect it, hence appointing his car, or a car in general, to the position. Like Caligula and his horse, who I can only imagine Trump looks up to hah

A ridiculous car would be the best to appoint to a high-level government position, honestly.

I figure he’d look up to Caligula.

I call that effect “baader-meinception”

Honestly it’s just the Internet. Tech is fucking awesome, as long as it’s decoupled from anything and anyone else trying to control, monitor, impose, or otherwise fuck with the tech that’s mine, bought or built fairly. And also the untold psychological torture the Internet is just constantly inflicting on us.

Does addiction excuse the abuse, or merely explain it?

IDK Ozzy actively tried to kill Sharon, that seems pretty abusive.

We’re just getting to the oldest linguistic debate. Is a linguist’s job to describe, or to prescribe? I lean very heavily towards describe.

That’s literally how accents and dialects work. People in a bubble developed different linguistic shifts. To them, and to to broader world as a whole, they are speaking a correct form of English, and yet some thick accents are practically unintelligible to people who haven’t practiced hearing the accent. We only recently began worrying about being understood beyond our narrow in groups. For the majority of history, these “bubbles” are just what we called cultures.

There are those constraints around written/spoken word, for sure. I’m more referring to how close it is to the “raw” thought.

We evolved the ability to think. In order to allow our thoughts to reach others, we developed spoken word. In order to allow those spoken words to be passed through time, we developed written word. Each refers back to the previous “layer” of communication.

Even someone who has a speech impediment, for instance, is still using the same written language as someone else in the same culture. And that written language was developed specifically to try and evoke the words someone in the culture speaks.

Words aren’t “endangered”. There are literally an infinite number of potential words, if we need to reinvent a meaning, we can quite easily(see: synonym). Further, the original meanings still exist. You can still use “awful” to mean “inspiring awe” and you’re correct, you just won’t be understood.

Gotteeeeeem!

That evolution has happened SO many times. Why does “literally” give you fits when “awful” or “terrific” do not? Perhaps because it’s the shift you happen to be living through?

And “6 7” is a shibboleth, a linguistic phenomenon that’s been going on for as long as we have written history, essentially, it’s just now that it’s the youngins doing the thing, it’s bad. Yeah, you right, pretty shitty take.

Written word is a facsimile of a facsimile of what we’re actually communicating. We go from nebulous thoughts, concepts not bound by language, to sounds that roughly convey those concepts, and then to squiggly lines that roughly convey those sounds, and then back up the chain in the other person. Really, it’s a miracle we understand each other at all.

Mine is “network unavailable”.

Another good video discussing the origins of Yahweh/YHWH

That’s your only contribution? Cool. Objections duly noted.

Proofreading your own work without a significant time gap is pretty useless. You’ll catch a few obvious errors, but approaching the same problem in the same mental space tends to lead to the same thought patterns, tends to lead to making or overlooking the same mistakes.

You’ll do a bit better reapproaching the subject a few days later. It’s almost, but not quite, like reading a new piece of writing. In my experience, comments are set and forget, unless you’re obsessive like me and enjoy rereading your old shit.

By far the most effective proofreading, though, is an Editor. There’s a reason it’s a paid position for anyone who makes a living writing. A completely different person will read the text more as-is, without accidentally interpreting it how they INTENDED it to be written. This will catch far more errors, but isn’t really practical for shit posting in social media. The closest you’ll get is someone calling out a typo or grammatical error.

As long as the intent of the message is clear, it passes the bar for acceptable social media content. We’re not writing PhD theses, we’re just having fun discussions. We’re not writing a paper meant to be readable to someone independently, we’re engaging in dialogue and can easily ask the other person to clarify.

TL;DR high-level proofreading and error correcting isn’t really as viable on social media as it is formal writing, nor is it really necessary as long as the message received is the message intended.

I’d love a single giant lady to finger…

What were we talking about again?