CoggyMcFee @ CoggyMcFee @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

533

Joined

2 yr. ago

Hell he’d do it for no other reason than to show off and get praised

No, it’s just that your response was absurd. You didn’t answer my question, rehashing some points that I had already addressed and not answering my question. I found your response repetitive, uncurious, and selfish to the point of parody.

I was starting to write a different kind of answer, and I thought, why am I indulging this person who isn’t even taking the time to process what I’ve already written?

And women

Won’t someone think of the poor coffee snobs who want their coffee just so, but don’t want to have to make it themselves at home? We can’t sacrifice their ideal coffee temperature at public establishments just to save some people from horrific burns — people who are probably wearing the wrong pants anyway, and therefore are kind of at fault too, when you think about it.

What if you bought an ice cream cone and it was so cold that you had to get skin grafts to repair the damage to your lips? And not only that, but the owner of the store instructed the employees to make it that cold?

The McDonald’s woman’s risk calculation was probably “if this spills, it will hurt” and not, “if this spills, it will do permanent, significant damage to my body”.

Why would anyone prefer living in a world where some property of any item you buy could intentionally be set to dangerously extreme levels?

It’s because the AI has no idea what reality is. Note also that Elaine’s praise took on the perspective of the wearer.

I don’t know. When I actually observe what people on the left say, they offer a path and don’t just rail against the right. It just doesn’t make headlines.

And you can say that means they need to do better at controlling the narrative, but I think the problem is that negative stuff has an inherent advantage when it comes to making headlines. So when the right does their outrageous negative shit: automatic headlines. When the left offers hope and reason: crickets.

Doesn’t mean the left can shrug their shoulders and not strive for better, but they are at an inherent disadvantage because of the nature of our society. (And if you want to say this is largely the fault of capitalism out of control then you’d get no argument from me.)

Also if he ran in the very next election, he’d be 66 at his inauguration. Not exactly achieving our goal of injecting some youth into the presidency!

You are an individual multilingual person from a specific place. I’m talking about how monolingual speakers on average would compare in their knowledge of formal grammatical terms to multilingual speakers, again, on average. In particular with English which has very little verb conjugation or case marking, it is very easy to ignore the class of a word if that’s the only language you learn about.

sorry but I think you are misjudging just how much you learn both grammar and vocabulary from speaking a language natively and possibly misjudging how well education can teach someone a language

languages are these surprisingly complex and irregular things, which are way easier to learn by doing than by trying. often entering school you can already use tenses or grammatical structures that students learning English as a second language will struggle with a few years later in their educational journey, while you can spend that time unknowingly building up an even better subconscious understanding of the language.

It sounds like you are confusing having an ability to speak and understand a language with having a formal education in a language, or just misunderstanding what I was saying. As you point out, people can already speak their native language (more or less) starting from the first day of grammar school. In fact, school isn’t necessary at all for a person to be a native speaker.

The children starting out in school don’t have a clue what a noun or verb is in the language. When someone reaches the point in school where they learn these grammatical concepts, they can do poorly at grasping them or forget about them after they’ve learned them and they are no longer part of the curriculum. They don’t actually need to know these things well (or at all) in order to speak, read, and write. High school students can write an essay in English that shows total mastery of the past progressive verb form without being able to tell you what it is.

On the other hand, when learning a second language (unless one does immersion), a person can’t rely on their native-speaker instinct and therefore will struggle to speak, read, and write if they don’t get the hang of formal grammatical terms to process their language input and compute the output.

Because you don’t have to have any formal education in your native language to speak it; you could blow off or fail English in school. But if you know a second language, there is a much higher chance that you had some formal education in the way of classes or books. You could still fail it or blow it off, but it seems like a reasonable assumption that you’d have a higher chance of having a grasp of grammar concepts.

Maybe we can solve this like when Reddit solved the Boston Marathon bombing

Well that’s a relief

Not sure why something has to extrapolate to every context you can think of in order to make a lick of sense, especially when talking about language and writing systems, which almost always have exceptions.

The entire spoiler or dividing vote hoax is based on this false assumption that the voters carry the responsibility for not voting for a "lesser evil" candidate when that burden of responsibility should instead be on the nominee for not doing enough in their power to win over votes

No, that’s just plain incorrect. The spoiler vote phenomenon is an inevitable consequence of our first-past-the-post election system. Whatever you start from, this voting system trends to two parties over time. You can model this and watch it play out. It’s not a hoax. We even saw Ross Perot make a serious run at the presidency in the 90s, and he ended up with zero electoral votes, and 4 years later he did much worse and his Reform party fizzled out and nothing came of it. Because it is absolutely suboptimal in our voting system.

Exaggerating Biden’s mental fitness day after day is a double-edged sword, since in moments like this he can blow away expectations

But if we eliminated them, I wouldn’t have that as my excuse anymore

Pretty sure it’s coming from the rats

It’s always funny to me when conservatives are like “omg what’s with all the regulations?” as though we just made a bunch of regulations out of thin air… and not to address a problem that was occurring without the regulation.

Seriously. This isn’t a business selling us a product. This is our country, and it’s incumbent on us to understand the stakes and educate ourselves on how the government works. These politicians campaign because they want to help their own chances, but it’s actually the citizen’s responsibility to decide the best way to vote and to show up at the polls, whether they get “sold” on a good campaign or not.