mikeyBoy14 @ mikeyBoy14 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

35

Joined

2 yr. ago

Quote the part of my comment I wrote that I am against the phrase.

Mate, you're the one who's arguing that all black people have the same opinion on this issue and purporting to speak on their collective behalf.

To be fair, I would bet that not all black people are cool with being called a "person of colour" either.

I was hopeful that we would have fewer low effort comments like this on Lemmy since I moved from Reddit.

Yes, I agree it's a loaded term. Perhaps my disconnect is more how: (a) the loaded term and the acceptable term (in 2023, at least) are functionally identical, with only marginal grammatical separation; and (b) there is such a wide tabboo gap between those margins.

As a non-American, my confusion with this issue is that "coloured people" and "people of colour" are functionally identical phrases in the English language. Using coloured as an adjective vs a noun with "of" gets you to the exact same spot.

I appreciate that there is historical context, but I can't help but feel that the difference between offence and no offence essentially boils down to grammatical semantics. In my mind, barring slurs or perjoratives, the intention behind the phrase is really what matters.

That's one of my favourite things about my pup 😂 It's funny how people disagree on these things.

You think dog people are crazy?? I assure you, there is nothing crazy about the chewed up baseboards and furniture in my house from when my dog was a puppy. Nothing crazy in the slightest about having a dirty floor 24/7 because she brings mud and dirt in from her walks. I feel prefectly sane when she wakes me up barking in the middle of the night because she hears noises outside. Calm and collected when she chews up fresh sticks all over the bed.

You're the crazy one, my friend!!

This is some weird-ass propaganda article. The article frames this whole thing as a wronged war hero seeking justice, then just slips in a little tidbit that a court found he literally comitted war crimes, before going back to listing his medals.

Quote:

A judge dismissed the defamation claims, finding the articles were substantially true. The judge also found Roberts-Smith was responsible for four of the six unlawful deaths he had been accused of.

Mate, in basically all common law jurisdictions an agreement can be a legally binding contract regardless of its form. While there are some narrow exceptions (largely dealing with specific instruments or real property), by and large that rule holds. Even an oral contract is legally enforceable.

Pay what a fair wage, the GPU farm? 😂

I remember as a kid I was too dumb to actually beat the game, so I would just go to the end of each level and use the "call ball" cheat to win 😂

As a counterpoint, it would be quite unfair for the law to allow people to breach their agreements purely based on the medium used to enter into an otherwise valid contract.

E.g., what if the non-breaching person had invested considerable time or money complying with their end of the bargain in reliance on the promise? What if, as I understand the case was here, the parties completed multiple agreements over text and came to rely on that medium as the convention?

In any event, the analysis leaves a lot of room for a judge to consider the factual background and reach a fair outcome.

While the novelty of accepting a contract through emojis is pretty goofy, judges applying contract law to hold people to commercial promises like this is otherwise a pretty run-of-the-mill thing, even when the promise was over text.

Fucked Up the Distro?