This means that even in left-leaning communities like Lemmy, we're seeing a majority of individuals speak out and very clearly say "This does not offend me."
Has that been by people who are mentally disabled, though?
And that leftist spaces struggle with meaningfully engagement with systems of ablism has been a point of contention for…decades, now.
People have private conversations in public but, if I join in, I'm the crazy one~
Like, – yes – those people will have to accept that people may overhear them while talking about their subject but this isn't a new phenomenon. People have always done this.
This is one of the few valid criticisms I can think of. Like, I can get why she'd consider the legislation, considering the myriad of deepfakes made about her (which has got to feel…particularly violating on top of the non-sexual harassment and attention people have put on her since she, basically, first got elected) but there are really valid concerns about the legislation, particularly in the context of this administration.
And I don't remember her, at least, even addressing those concerns and potential abuses of the law.
I've been subscribed to this asshole for nearly a decade (keeping tabs on what that side is thinking and talking about) and this kind of hypocritical positioning is par for the course.
His recent take on Kilmar Abrego Garcia was repeatedly reiterating that he had credible ties to MS-13 and that the president totally has every right to just boot this man to another country but he was worried that Trump's defiance of the courts might endanger qualified immunity for federal officials.
Maybe we should question how good of an aid that is on its own when the eugenicists would happily love to offer such a service to help them in thinning the herd.
I was always low-key terrified of getting kidney stones (especially as someone who never drank water). Switched to drinking nothing but water last year and it's just one of the many benefits.
For a century now, the option has been at some point between 7 and 16, at the diocese's discretion. I received mine around 16; 13 sounds like an outlier, to me.
In the end, it's all subjective but – if you'll hear me out – thogh doesn't alter the current spelling very much while maintaining a linguistic heritage (as the "thogh" spelling was also likewise used, during Middle English); also, the number of words ending in just the "o" vowel is less common, I feel, and will probably look doubly foreign to a native English speaker due to the consonant digraph (though, again, subjective; maybe not).
However, – additionally – saving "oght" for "thought" is giving that letter combination a sound already covered in English by another letter combination: "aught" (e.g. caught, fraught, taught, …thaught…?). If we're keeping "ogh" around, we might as well give it a unique pronunciation association to avoid the overlap that was the original problem with "ough".
Finally, a single "f" for "tough" could work (certainly, there are examples) but we miss out on employing the Germanic linguistic tendency to indicate a short vowel sound with a double consonant, inherited by words such as "ball", "fall", "doll", "call", or "puff" (of course, there's plenty of exceptions ("get", "bet", "mat", etc.) but, so long as we're making changes, firming up an existing rule (and avoiding the brief uncertainty of whether or not the reader is dealing with a prefix) would, arguably, be useful).
tomenzgg @ tomenzgg @midwest.social Posts 0Comments 226Joined 6 mo. ago
To be fair, you originally said, "the real reason," but have just listed three different equal reasons.