You’re right, it’s very likely he wasn’t intending to use a slur. But it seems to me like a lot of the reporting is “he didn’t mean to disrespect people!” when that’s not the case. The pope’s intentions were absolutely to disrespect people, just by his actions, and not by that specific word. the specific phrasing he used to do so doesn’t really matter.
the pope had made the remark while reiterating his position against gay people becoming priests.
It doesn’t matter what word he used, he was using it in an anti LGBT sentiment.
The 87-year-old pontiff was reported as saying that the Catholic seminaries were already too full of … gay men.
Here, I removed the slur. This isn’t any better. Italian fluency wasn’t the problem and didn’t change his argument.
A ticket while “traveling”. Driving is something you need a license for, but they weren’t doing that because magic words. Most of this is them justifying that they weren’t driving because there is a difference between capitalized words and not, so they don’t need a license to travel, but they got a ticket for it anyway, so they want justice.
And then yes, they think you can just declare a $5 million countersuit and win by default, as part of the “I’m so smart, you can’t counter my flawless logic” delusion
Having a “don’t pull me over, im on your side 😉” sticker makes perfect sense if you’re an idiot who is doing things worth being pulled over for.
Hopefully. The thing about social platforms is that if everyone else leaves and doesnt tell them to fuck right off, it can get lonely. Xmpp still exists and im sure some people use it successfully, but its definitely not the same scale it once was
Thats because you didnt write your wet ink signature in red ink at a 45 degree angle when you applied. You also have to declare that you do not accept the terms of the contract and prefer indefinite extensions under Title 18 chapters 213 and 214.
If you do that, you don’t have to renew you license anymore.
Dragostea Din Tei (aka, the “Numa numa” song) is always a hit.
Yes. And that is the point of ads. And we can agree that it’s not great to manipulate consumers.
but “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy” is NOT identifying the presupposition, and therefore not rejecting the presupposition. It’s just stating that the original statement has a logical flaw. Which it doesn’t have any logical flaws if you accept that language has subtext.
“I dislike that the implication is that you can only compare to buying at full price, when there are other options like not buying (which saves 100% vs full price)” identifies the presupposition and rejects it.
For sure. An implied sense of false urgency is the point of sales in general. There’s all sorts of psychology around manipulating people into buying things.
I just think that acting as if there is some sort of grammatical error or gap in logic is missing the fact that in language, people imply things. And an ad implying “you’re going to buy this, so you better do it while costs less” isn’t too hard to follow.
You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.
That said, I agree that “pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to” is dumb.
I switched to FreshRSS which works just as well, and doesn’t have a toxic dev
What you are describing is called “language”
“You” wasn’t always allowed to be singular. Colour vs color. Doughnut can be donut. Etc. Languages evolve over time, and “drive-thru” is in plenty of dictionaries.