my_hat_stinks

Usually no, unless I’ve left a reply disagreeing then someone else comes along and downvotes them, makes me look like an ass who downvotes anyone I disagree with. I also check my own comments to see if people agree with me but I’ll keep the comment up either way, if I do change my mind I’d rather leave a new comment or add stuff in an edit.

It’s not too difficult to bot votes on lemmy so they’re even more pointless than they are on reddit.

deleted by creator

A sect is a sub-group of people unified by beliefs or practice, a denomination is essentially just a large named sect. Christianity is not monolithic and organises into groups, it by definition has sects.

Even if you were right it’s such a ridiculously pointless and pedantic argument, it does nothing to further the conversation. You’re just trying to use cheap gotchas as a thought-terminating cliche. The only thing you’ve done is to force us to literally argue semantics, that is not a good look for you.

For completeness, here’s a Christian source using the word sect to describe Christian groups, one of the top search engine hits when I searched.

Aphantasia is a spectrum, but even when you can visualise a full realistic scene it should be easy for most people to tell the difference between that and seeing something physically. When you can’t tell the difference that’s a hallucination.

It’s only total aphantasia if you can’t visualise an image in your mind at all. I believe then you’d get more a concept of an apple than an image or other depiction of an apple but that’s only my understanding from hearing other people talking about it.

This specific case isn’t really to do with the evolution of language, more just ineffective linguistic prescriptivism. Some guy 200 years ago decided they didn’t like how “less” had been used for the past millennium so they made up a guideline for what the preferred (like what you just said) then people decided to treat that as an actual rule. Obviously it’s still common to use “less” that way even after a couple of centuries of people trying to enforce that rule, it’s a good demonstration of how prescriptivism is a waste of time.

Strangely enough, in my experience many prescriptivists who rely on etymological arguments are fine with language changing for this one rule. Makes me think they never really did care about historic usage of a word.

Alice: So, how do you identify?
Bob: Normal.

What’s the odds Bob’s a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, “normal” is not a useful answer.

Fuck that, that’s implying any other orientation is abnormal. People should have the right words to describe their sexuality.

Thanks for downvote, but your response is still somewhere between unhelpful and a dog whistle.

I disagree with that framing, someone not buying your shit is not the same as you losing money. Inkscape saved millions for graphic designers, which is very different. Adobe was not entitled to that money, you can’t lose something that was never yours.

The British monarchy primarily “provides” money by owning land and other assets which would otherwise be government-owned. They also “earn” a shitload of money just for existing and still dump significant expenses onto taxpayers.

The important factor isn’t whether someone can be addicted (otherwise you’re banning nearly everything), it’s the harm that addiction causes. As a general rule of thumb physical dependencies like alcohol are more harmful than habitual addictions, but that obviously isn’t the whole story.

Caffeine addiction is the same category as alcohol and tobacco but causes so little harm that I don’t think anyone is seriously opposed it. On the other end of that scale is something like meth or other hard drugs, generally understood as destructive and has few serious supporters encouraging use. Breaking these addictions is almost always hard and physically taxing, in some cases can even be lethal.

Marijuana addiction is in the same category as most things that make you feel good or form habits so it’s harder to nail down a proper scale, but the lower end is probably something like video games; a debilitating addiction is possible but uncommon and most people would oppose a blanket ban on the basis of “can be addictive”. Gambling is on the other end can definitely ruin lives. I’d say that’s a little worse than coffee. Breaking these addictions is more like breaking a bad habit, it can feel hard for the addict but generally isn’t going to kill them.

There is no middle ground between binary options. You have rights or you don’t. You hate or you don’t. “Just a little bigotry” it’s still bigotry. If I say 1+1=2 but you say it’s 3 that does not make the right answer 2.5.

Your worldview is literally the middle ground fallacy.

Supporting human rights isn’t in any way “gaslighting”. It’s very reasonable to ban someone for being a piece of shit.

You are under no obligation to keep a product you don’t like for any reason, companies aren’t entitled to your money by default. You might have had a point if we were talking about some super rare item only one or two companies manufacture but this is about a HDD dock, you’ll probably find 5 different models with identical functionality just by checking your local electronics store.

I have never heard anyone claim returning something is “extreme” before. It’s so mild it should be one of the first options you consider, especially when you ordered online and didn’t get the chance to see the item before purchase. You shouldn’t get saddled with shit just because there’s some “feature” you hate which you weren’t aware of when you bought it. For that reason where I am you’d have a legal right to return almost any order within 14 days of receipt no questions asked, or longer if there’s a defect.

From your description it sounds like they haven’t complied with a legally binding ombudsman decision. The ombudsman is the last stop before legal action, you should get in touch with a real solicitor rather than ask for anonymous advice online.

An N322A form might be what you need to enforce the decision, but if I were you I’d check with Citizens Advice or a lawyer first.

You are very bad at trolling. Try reading the first sentence of the source instead of skipping to a related etymology. Use of a word in a 1610 text is concrete evidence of use of that word existing in 1610, regardless of any other claims that text makes; if it read “Martians ate my baby” that would be concrete evidence of the word “Martians” being used but not of Martians existing.

I posted three sources and you evidently did not read any of them. The latest of the three sources is the exact same variant as modern use and dated 1500s, which is slightly more than the 100 years ago you’re claiming.

When I said it was a biblical term I was being entirely literal. King James translation circa 1610, Acts 11:26:

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

I’m not sure where you’re getting that information, Christian is not a new word. It’s literally biblical. You could make an argument that it’s a 1500s word but that’s a little spurious considering alternative forms such as Cristien and Cristen appear far earlier.

Edit: Christian, “1520s”, etymonline; Cristien, “c1300”, Middle English Compendium; Christen, “pre-1150”, OED (potentially referencing modern definition of baptising rather than religious follower, paywalled so can’t double check that one)

Seems like a non-issue to me. You’ll go to whichever hospital is closest. If you’re resident in one of the countries you’ll be in EU/EEA and get the usual healthcare for residents of whichever country the hospital is in, if you’re non-EU it’ll depend on what travel insurance you have.

This argument has never made sense simply because of the fact that singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries. It’s even reasonable to say it’s always been in use considering singular they/them was in use in the 14th century and modern English formed around 14-17th. I can guarantee you have never batted an eye when you heard something like “someone called but they didn’t leave a message”.

There are only two differences with recent usage: people are less likely to assume genders so use they/them more freely; and people identifying specifically as they/them. The words themselves haven’t really changed, they’re just more common now. Opposition to singular they/them is almost entirely political.