Many people refuse to acknowledge the nuance of language development. Especially when mixed with what is socially acceptable. Because that’d mean conceding they could be hurting people.
I’ll join you in the downvotes. You may be oversimplifying a bit too, but I see where you’re coming from.
You raise valid points, and context definitely matters, but I think when it comes to language it should be decided by the consensus within the minority it was originally used to describe.
For example, most of the disabled community agrees “r-tard” is offensive these days, so it’s use has gone down. Just like “gay” before it. And white folks still argue the n-word should be fine for everyone to use if they end it with an a.
I’m not saying minorities can’t reclaim words, and language definitely changes with time. But most women I interact with get uncomfortable when men around them say “bitch” routinely.
Dude jerks to the left last minute and your buddy loses a finger
Brilliant. And a suspicious number of them could have experience working backstage in a theatre.
I never gaslit you. You’re just using buzzwords now. This conversation is done. Bye bye hun, grow a frontal lobe
Reread the first paragraph hun, that’s all that still applies. And contains everything I want to say to you. Bye bye
so I was right in my other comment, you’re just a dick. Thanks for confirming.
You aren’t Captain America,standing up for some ideal when the world is against you. The fact that you even consider immoral options as valid shows your intention was never to grow your understanding. You aren’t pointing out some broader social issues like a prophet on a soapbox.
Honestly, you’re showing a lot of signs of being on the autism spectrum. Missing obvious social rules and cues, a rigid sense of morality, and defensiveness at perceived passive aggression. I’ve delt with similar, so this is intended as an olive branch.
The best thing you can do is change or rephrase your question. For example, you could say “How does one end up homeless? Surely there are ways to avoid it, right?” This phrasing leaves the door open for further nuance in responses. Your current phrasing implies responsibility is a simple binary, it’s their fault or it isn’t. The issue, and conversation, isn’t so simple.
Edit: Spelling
People freaked out about the increased use of books, aka "codexes” at the time, over scrolls.They believed the information was better processed when uninterrupted by turning pages, and that books could never communicate the same depth of understanding as scrolls.
The medium isn’t the issue. It’s the motives. Steer those in the right direction instead of longing for some golden past that never existed.
Even calling that hallowed out shell a car is a big stretch.
I mean yeah? Why the question? Both can be true.
The kid (man-child) stole a cookie (election). We all watched. He knew we knew. No consequences.
Of course he’s doing it again.
Most Americans recognize things are usually more complicated. It’s our “representatives” that boil away the nuance. And without nuance it’s easy to label any rebel a terrorist, regardless of their actual tactics and intent.
I’d bet money he tries to hit the big red button daily so they set up a fake one and just makeup a country so he thinks he actually won and forgets the whole thing a few hours later.
Well, I will not be blackmailed by some ineffectual, privileged, effete, soft-penis’d debutante.
I totally agree, except the final paragraph. I think the source of the communication issue is a combination of perceived tone in your initial comment and the sensitivity of the subject. Not to fully blame either. So I don’t think people are being belligerent or willfully ignorant.
Conversations like these are a minefield, so don’t take it personally if you stumble. And remember why the minefield is there in the first place. Sometimes you just gotta back out, or set off more mines you meant to disarm.
Metaphor got a bit lost, but I think you get the point.