slurpyslop

can’t withhold a vote because policy won’t change because if it did people would withhold their vote and then the policy would change

it’s not a mistake because it’s not a real rule

This isn’t an example of how modern English is going to the dogs. Less has been used this way for well over a thousand years—nearly as long as there’s been a written English language. But for more than 200 years almost every usage writer and English teacher has declared such use to be wrong. The received rule seems to have originated with the critic Robert Baker, who expressed it not as a law but as a matter of personal preference. Somewhere along the way—it’s not clear how—his preference was generalized and elevated to an absolute, inviolable rule.

one less thing for you to worry about

the democrat party will lose if a segment of their voter base abstains from voting

and

the democrat platform can afford to completely ignore a segment of their voter base so doesn’t need to adjust their platform

are two mutually exclusive positions

lead for emergency pencils

lmfao

the first result is the wikipedia article, which as we’ve discussed, is several thousand words long

i’m not trying to justify my use of language, i’m explaining why you’re wrong, and you’re responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary

you’re not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you’re saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary

those are two completely different things and it’s astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with “i’m sure you can do better than that”

doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn’t the play you seem to think it is

the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it’s possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry

I’m sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.

it’s more that they don’t have a definition at all

they use it similarly to “woke”, in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context

if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you’d get something like “person i disagree with to the point of dislike”, at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as “i don’t like people i don’t like”

it’s completely dissimilar

“liberal” is significantly less specific in its implications, both in terms of modern day parlance and historical roots, than “zionist”

i like the concept of hiring other gooners to have a big sweaty circlejerk with

A man walks into a bar and orders three beers.

The bartender brings him the three beers, and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third, until they’re gone.

He then orders three more and the bartender says, “Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one, and I’ll bring you a fresh one as soon as you’re low.”

The man says, “You don’t understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the Ireland. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night, we’d still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three beers, too, and we’re drinking together.”

The bartender thinks it’s a wonderful tradition, and every week he sets up the guy’s three beers. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them and then orders two more.

The bartender says sadly, “Knowing your tradition, I’d just like to just say that I’m sorry you’ve lost a brother.”

The man replies, “Oh, my brothers are fine. I just quit drinking.”

Of the violent protests, how many protestors at those specific protests do you imagine would be considered “violent” by the same metric?

shows what you guys know

i met a girl through her bio last week and it turns out we’re so compatible we have the same social security number, birthday and mother’s maiden name

what kind of freak doesn’t bring a bagwette to a picnic

and my point is that it’s not going to change unless people attempt to change it

it’s literally the same argument that gets wheeled out any time there’s pressure for social change, then when things finally change we all look back in 10 years and ask ourselves how the hell we ever tolerated the old way of doing things

if you want to vote biden because you think the short term benefits of avoiding trump for another 4 years outweigh the long term drawbacks of further entrenching the same status quo that led to palestine, fine

just don’t pretend that you never had any choice in the matter

rome famously neglected diplomacy, but in either case once you get rid of the mental gymnastics your argument boils down to “it’s too hard so we shouldn’t try”

that’s the thing though, they don’t need to “get help to” palestine, they just need to stop actively supporting israel in its genocide

you think the appetite is going to be there for actually committing resources somewhere when they can’t even just do nothing?

Not really. In detail, maybe, but there will always be an excuse available to avoid committing US resources to any given genocide.

If you’re in a safe seat, then no they don’t care about your vote as much, so they don’t care about your protest vote as much.

If you’re in a swing seat, then they care about your vote more, and therefore your protest vote has more weight.

Democrats caring about your vote is by definition inexorably linked to how powerful your vote is.

But since we’re talking hypotheticals, if there’s another genocide in 5 years, why would the democrats spend political capital to prevent it if they have solid data to show that they don’t need to bother and can still win reelection?

That they can just point out how much worse the republicans might be in this scenario? You think Trump will be the only bad potential president? You think if you can get past this one election that US politics will return to “normal”? There’s more or less always going to be a Trump from now on.