Doom! Dooooooom!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
Tedesche
joined 2 years ago
“President-elect Trump ELECTRONICALLY PONTIFICATES at Biden over pardons for death row inmates.”
LOL, keep imagining demons, man. What a sad home for pearl-clutching recemongers Lemmy is.
I think you and many other people in this thread have this ass to mouth and don’t know which end is which.
No, your entire comment is in general ignorance of my point, which I’ve articulated enough times by now that I’m not going to do it again. Y’all can hide behind cultural differences as much as you want. Grammatical rules still exist and pointing that out isn’t racist. Grow the fuck up, I’m out.
Call me cynical, but I somewhat expect this will make it to SCOTUS and be overturned, somehow. The present SCOTUS doesn't care about legal precedent or even really the rule of law. They're 6/9 a super PAC.
it’s funny how you say I’m naive and then proceed to insist that your grammar rules are somehow more right than another’s.
Why is that funny? I fail to see how contending that grammatical rules are valid and valuable contradicts with the notion that you claiming "everyone has their own rules, get over it" is naïve. They're not in contradiction at all.
While double negatives might be inappropriate in, for example, technical documents; there are a great number of contexts in which they’re quite common and normal. I’m not saying “rules” don’t broadly exist, but rather that they vary from place to place, culture to culture (including Sub and micro-cultures).
Nothing I said contradicts that. I simply pointed out that that's no reason to disregard the rules of grammar.
By the way, you should look into the sorts of people who have historically agreed with you. Classists and racists. For example, Robert Lowth, who argued people sounded dumb, essentially, because it was illogical. Same with many of the grammarians in the US who consistently taught kids that ‘they sound dumb’ because they happen to have a colloquial dialect different than their own.
I made no such racist argument and for you to suggest that I'm racist merely because I pointed out that grammatical rules have purpose and utility simply demonstrates how little you understand the historical context you're trying to weaponize and how eager you are to slander those who disagree with you as racist. You're not winning yourself any real points for combatting racism, you're just exposing yourself as an empty virtue signaler.
Came here to say this. Their pricing strategies definitely are justifiable but their petty lawsuits do little-to-nothing to protect their bottom line.
They're definitely cheaper than using cartridge razors, but personally I found decent cartridge razors just get a closer shave than safety razors. And it wasn't for failing to learn how to use a safety razor either. I used one for several years, got good at it, but later switched back to cartridge razors on a whim and found that they simply get reliably closer shave than a single blade does. I still use soap and a brush rather than canned shaving cream, because it is much better and more economical, but for me the closer shave that comes with a cartridge razor is worth the price.
What do you find pointless about them?
That's naïve. One can appreciate differences in grammar usage and take them into account when trying to understand someone else in the context of cultural differences and still acknowledge that grammar has formal rules. If you're just going to say that grammatical rules can be ignored, why bother teaching grammar at all? Because as much as there might be deviations from the norm, there is still a norm, and it's important there is one. One cannot appreciate jazz without learning classical musical structures; the existence of jazz does not negate that music has said structures, and jazz wouldn't be jazz without them.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HAAAAAAVE THE POWEEEEEEEEER!!!