this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
1167 points (97.7% liked)
Bluesky
351 readers
466 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not really though. This isn't the system not working this is reasonable steps on law being abused to extend that prosecution essentially as long as you can afford to throw legal bullshit at them to create delays.
Again, that does not mean it should always be shorter than an election.
Who said always.
Ed: to be clear no one did. And in fact a system that you agree has fundamental flaws is in fact fundamentally flawed by your own admission.
Being contrarian is ok but being tedious and contrarian all while making an argument based on words and implications that didn't exist is a bad look.
This quote says, in other words, prosecuting a felon always has to take less time than electing him in a system that is not broken. Because, if it sometimes can take longer, then the system is broken according to the quote.
Because I agree the US system is broken as fuck. But the original quote is still dumb as rocks. Both can be true at the same time.
Not reading and understanding the whole comment thread before responding is a bad look.
Not at all. That's arguing one of the two of those things is broken and on this case it's both.
In this case no, you're simply making conclusions based on your reading of it not the actual words in it.
Agreed, you should have a look at your comments and take it to heart yourself.
Now I am curios, what does this sentence mean in your head?
That the system is fundamentally broken which you've already agreed with.
Ed: curious not curios.
There is no "the system" in that sentence. The sentence is a generalization, not talking about a specific system.
The system [of government, you bafoon]. Stating you dont understand interference probably isn't going to help you.
It is specifically talking about the system of election and prosecution in this country ironically both executive functions so "the system" is incredibly accurate.
You are hallucinating. There is no "The" anywhere in that sentence. Maybe ease up on whatever you are using.
Or read up on what the difference between "a" and "the" is: https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/determiners-articles.php
The is the inferred word and notably it doesn't change the subject or idea if removed. Ie. It's pointless fluff that context makes redundant.
Ed: like you understand we're talking about the us system of government specifically prosecution and elections. "A system" in context is "the system" as we don't have multiple forms of government in the United States. You can imply drug use but that just means you have less of a grasp of English than someone you think is high which is more of an insult to you than it is to me boss.
But it is not removed, it is replaced by "A", an indefinite article. As in "Any system that satisfies the given condition is broken".
Words have meaning. You deciding to replace a word for a different word with a different meaning is you misreading. Not inference and everyone else misunderstanding.
So no, the sentence is not talking about the US system specifically, but making an observation about governing systems in general. Which is what I and masterspace disagreed with.
A system meaning the US system of government.
Yes they all have meaning, in this case none of them change the subject or idea so either or none are acceptable. That's just how English works and you're not having the gotcha moment you seem to think you're having.
You are just wrong.
I explained how it changes the meaning.
Read up on articles or stay ignorant, I don't have anything more to say.
https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/determiners-articles.php
Ok tell me in context what system are they talking about. I'll wait.
Except it doesn't, explaining your feelings that don't align with reality is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Tell me, what articles are you referring to that will somehow make what you're saying less tedious or moreover less stupid.
I already did multiple times, go reread my comments if you missed it or try meditating on them if you are unable to understand basic English on the first try.
Then you agree with me guy, you disagree with me "always". Have a look back and I won't hold my breath for an apology.
That is not even a valid sentence. I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.
Mr always*
I'm dyslexic boss, mistakes happen but your argument is still shit hence giving up on it to be a grammer Nazi.
I did not point out any of your previous mistakes, despite you pointing out mine. But this sentence is incomprehensible to me. Which is what I wrote. Yet instead of just clarifying, you choose to call me a "grammar Nazi", in addition to your previous insults. If you can't admit your are wrong/are unwilling to understand, than just end the discussion. What is the point of spewing nonsense and insults here?
I didn't say you did and I mentioned it so you could correct it, you'll notice I didn't make fun of you for it.
This entire argument is Nazi Grammer bullshit so if you involve yourself you are in fact a grammer Nazi.
No nonsense, several insults sure they're verbal jabs, not knives and I'm certain everyone will survive it.
Everyone understands why it was written the way it was, everyone also understands it's aimed at one specific country and to be honest if we're going to get tedious about it is written both ways anyway just more obviously one way then the other.
So everyone understands it your way but chooses to down vote your comment anyway. Right. Ok.
People down vote for no reason, if you're basing if something is factual or not on downvotes then honestly your very dumb, I think the side are even tells you they're not right or wrong and in most cases they're detached from factuality not by necessity attached.
It's clearly written with ambiguity so it doesn't get banned ask the writer... Oh wait!?
I am answering your claim that "everyone understands", not any factual topic. But sure, everyone is out to down vote you for no reason. Poor you.
Everyone does, you'd have to be an actual idiot not to get it.
No one said that douchebag, I said I don't give a shit about votes because they're meaningless. You think an up vote = fact, you're an actual factual moron.
You really can't even distinguish a fact from an opinion? And yet call other people morons? How random people understand something is their opinion. It has nothing to do with facts. And yes, votes are usually a good indicator of opinions.
It's a fact dipshit. Again ask the writer but again .. oh wait!?
Dude 🤣 When I quote your statement, it means the next paragraph is arguing against or otherwise commenting on that statement.
Yeah votes tell us nothing about how the original author understood it, but it tells us how other people reading it understood it.
~~If your dyslexia makes it difficult to follow simple arguments, maybe try text-to-speech or something.~~ Edit: This did not really come out as I intended it, apologies :(
No shit? Where exactly do you think I was confused about that?
No, they say im mean which is true. They don't say I'm wrong.
Yeah bro, hit the disability. Nice, try racism next, that's always a hit.
Not how I interpret it, but plausible.
You literally brought that up yourself as a defense before, otherwise I wouldn't even know about it. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that it is not your intelligence that is lacking. There is nothing wrong with misreading an argument due to a disability after all.
But whatever, I already made all the arguments I had. If you still don't understand or are not convinced, then I guess it will have to stay that way.
Good night.
Then again I say your very dumb. Upvote ≠ correct.
I did, bringing it up to try to insult me is the shitty part. I'm an asshole not a bigot, it doesn't seem you can say the same.
Oh so I ask you to point to where my disability is the issue or where I got lost/confused and all of a sudden you've made all your points. Gotcha, let's add coward to that list.
What else is there to say? You have just been putting things into my mouth for the last few comments.
Never claimed that was the case. Just assumed up votes correlate to who the voters think is right. But sure, it may not be the case if they dislike you for some reason. Which you acknowledged in the previous comment, and I agreed, yet you bring it up anyway. Just take the win on that one. If you even can count people disliking you after reading a few sentences from you a win.
As for the dyslexia comment, it was really meant to insinuate that, if it is not due to dyslexia, you are dumb. If anyone reading this other than you took it as an insult towards dyslexic people, I apologise. It was not my intent. In retrospect, I see how it is insensitive. As for you Madison420, I don't particularly care how exactly my subtle jab insulted you to be honest.
Try again dipshit.
Neat, that's where we differ I might call you stupid for doing stupid shit but I'm not going to insult you for being disabled because that's objectively immoral. The fact you don't care you said some buried shit to me specifically says something about you personally.
If I cut you off in traffic is it reasonable to call me a racial slur because that's essentially what you're saying.
That's an oxymoron. Morals are subjective, ethics are objective.
Anyway, I consider it morally and ethically wrong to insult a whole class of people based on race, disability, etc.
A person I intend to insult misunderstanding my insult as a different insult on the other hand I consider morally not my problem.
There's a few things moral people agree on and being shitty about disability and race are pretty well universal. It's unethical as well if that's your excuse.
Duh.
What was it supposed to mean dipshit? You're saying I'm dumb or my disability prevented me from doing something. What exactly? Oh you won't say because you can't find anything that would make being shitty about a disability reasonable. So again I'm an asshole not at least I'm not a bigot.
As I said, my point was supposed to be
"He can't be this stupid to not follow this simple argument, so it has to be something else."
Insert what I consider genuine advice regarding dealing with dyslexia. My colleague has dyslexia and text to speech and AI summaries help him a lot. So I wanted it to come across as genuine advice, saying it is fine and understandable to misread something due to dyslexia.
And then the punchline was supposed to be that it was not dyslexia, you are that unthinkably stupid.
Obviously I realized too late that is a bit too convoluted to follow and it could come across as jab at dyslexia itself, which was not my intention. I again apologize if I insulted anyone due to disability or otherwise made you feel uncomfortable in this way.
As for morals and ethics of "being shitty about disability and race are pretty well universal", I agree. Though the reason I consider it shitty is primarily because it disparages people that did not deserve to be insulted and disparaged.
I honestly didn't ever think much about whether I consider it my moral responsibility for insulting someone in an unintended way involving race or disability due to poorly formulated insult. My gut feeling was no, an insult is an insult as long as it does not involve unintended people but thinking about it again, I am not quite sure. I may have to think about it.
Yep, you didn't mean to yell the hard r but they called you dumb so what's the difference huh?
Oh I'm sure, you couldn't just call me stupid you had to bring up my disability. Still can't say why or what for aside from an insult but sure, the insult you admit was an insult wasn't an insult. Gotcha, very stupid but gotcha.
That would make it objectively immoral, I don't need to tell you it's wrong you already know it is.
So it's ok to make fun of a disability of the person is mean, gotcha. Again very stupid but you've made your point.
Hard doubt, we both know you were insulting me. No matter what acrobatics you do will cover that up and moreover the more you try the worse you look.
Dude, you insulted me as well. Yes I intended to insult your intelligence right back. I did not intend to insult you based on you disability. But that is clear from what I wrote. You're clearly just trolling now after losing an argument. So I am blocking you and going to sleep.
I called you a dipshit because you're acting like a disphit.
You however insulted me and brought up my disability at the same time. It's ok to call me stupid, it's not ok to say "ok stupid, you can't read good either" it's another thing entirely.
And yet again, you can't point to what prompted your bigoted fucking insult in the first place.
It just happened to be included with a different insult. Totally makes sense.