I need you to define the word "oligarchy" and then show me that it applies using that specific definition.
Edit: the point is that if you actually define the term as "a polity that's controlled by a small number of people" (that is, the definition) it's easy to show the above comment is just a lie.
"To prevent violent uprising of the proletariat" are you actively trying to phrase it to make it sound like even when someone does something good it was actually bad?
The people saying "always has been" have really short memories or've forgotten about the Roosevelt administrations.
There is a decent argument to be made that the USA is a de-facto oligarchy. However, it's a de-jure liberal democracy and Constitutional Republic for the time being.
The boomers were defined by a demographic shift and the millennials (gen y, because Y comes after X and also because "y2k" ) were defined by being young-ish around New year's day 2000. Meanwhile X, z, ι, and allegedly now "β" are just arbitrary postmarks who's locations are malleable and variable by the person you're talking to.
This is one of those cultural things that I tend to get grump and annoyed about because it's stupid and people pretend that it's real.
This is different from saying "If you don't give credit, it's plagiarism."
Put another way: it is sufficient for something to not be plagiarism if all materials are credited, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything that doesn't do that is plagiarism per-se. It is beyond the scope of my musings to reckon the minimum requirement of non-accreditation for something to qualify as "plagiarism".
I think "plagiarism" refers to taking credit for the work of others. Using other people's work to make your own isn't "plagiarism" if you give credit. This doesn't mean AI is good, just that "plagiarism" isn't the correct word.
My thoughts on the second point: I find that constructed neopronouns (particularly any of them that use the letter x) and bespoke pronouns (like "drag" as mentioned before) have an air of immaturity to them that make it difficult for me to take seriously. I also tend to find them aesthetically displeasing. I also don't think it makes sense for bespoke pronouns to be considered "pronouns" in the same way common, neo, and the aforementioned (what I'm now going to call) slang pronouns are, because by their very nature they refer to a specific individual rather than being a word that can be readily applied to a great many individuals.
As for my thoughts on the first point, I hadn't ever thought of those words as pronouns, but after thinking about it, it makes sense to me.
Leate_Wonceslace @ Leate_Wonceslace @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 1Comments 1,445Joined 2 yr. ago
No one mentioned AI, and also I don't know.