This is the comment that got me off the toilet.

It’s just an eggcorn.

They make the point in that video that it can’t be considered a real mistake since it makes its own kind of sense.

Breighden.

Yes, this. Nobody came along and decreed the dictionary was descriptive - which would itself be a prescriptivist view of the world - it just is.

Linguistics rejected prescriptivism because it is a failed model of reality. I think the reason so many people cling to a prescriptive model is because in school we were taught obedience above all else, which is a terrible way of educating people, but maybe it helps to maintain a subservient class of workers.

Okay, thanks, makes sense.

Fascinating, but it doesn’t really explain why mandarins come pre-sliced, since they’re at the top of that chart.

Although being easy to eat seems like an evolutionary advantage for fruit even if humans aren’t doing it.

Yeah, “you get to keep the car, I get unlimited travel pass, deal?” People often seem to think policies are iron clad, but they’re just decisions.

Might be hard because the car is a significant upfront investment. The sunk cost is another big reason people defend their cars.

Hypocrisy means a lack of self-reflection, and I am perfectly able to reflect on the fact that I was deliberately disrespecting you, and I think it was a fine thing to do actually.

You took a meaningful, thoughtful reply and dismissed it with a nitpick that, by the way, completely missed the point.

Your response to my critique was pure toxicity, just laden with contempt for me and the other commenter. The fact you started with a grammatical complaint shows how utterly shallow and vapid your replies are.

You’re an asshole, and I have no trouble talking to you like an asshole. However, I won’t let you waste any more of my time, so this is the last thing I’ll say to you. Feel free to shock me by not being an asshole in your final reply.

It wasn’t hypocrisy, I was demonstrating a lack of respect for anything you had to say, just like you did. Doesn’t feel good, does it?

All three of the “sentences” in your reply don’t fucking parse if you want to be goddamn garmmar nazi about it.

You got a well-written, thoughtful and meaningful comment, and you mined it for one nitpick to sarcastically attack as if it was the whole point.

Pearls before swine.

This version has left handed as well:

https://caligunner.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pistol-correction-chart-misses-1170x658.jpg

Do they have fuji 9?

Sure but they still don’t have to raise the rent at every opportunity, that’s still a choice.

Also though the largest landlords are in a position to create artificial scarcity by buying up properties just to keep them empty, so people don’t have other options.

Because issuing a prohibition is basically always a punishment of the people to distract from who is actually causing the problem.

From a political standpoint it very much is either/or, this is done to exhaust any momentum towards systemic change.

“Ban the children to protect them” is an extremely shortsighted way to approach any policy or social ill. Kids will find a way to access social media, and this ban means they’ll need to do it in secret. So now anybody preying on them through those means has their implicit cooperation in covering up the abuse. That includes the media platforms themselves.

Also, why would you need to ban children from social media if the addictive strategies were under control?

A ban like this is only going to cause harm.

Always remember that “the market” is just a signal to the landlord that they could get more if the property were on the market today. It’s still their choice to squeeze you to take advantage of that. “It’s the market” is code for “because I can”.

Also they know that people don’t want to move every year or two, so they can absolutely raise the rent above market level without you wanting to leave yet. This has the effect of pushing the market higher. The switching cost is very high, so it’s in their favour that way too.

A landlord I knew about through a friend said they never raised the rent as long as their property is being paid off, because they would rather have it occupied and being paid than the tenants leave and the place sit empty.

Not to say that’s a good landlord by any means, but there is a choice. The market isn’t a mandate.

I mean if you find that arrangment happens to you organically then great, but ultimately if you have three people all together, that’s three pairs. Four people is six pairs.

There’s no getting around that fact, that’s just how many combinations there are. And if just one of those pairs breaks up for whatever reason, then that mutual group stops working. It’s a very tenuous arrangement. It can also be a big strain on the other pairs when that happens, especially if it breaks with the understanding of what the group is supposed to be.

That’s why I think it’s best not to have that kind of arrangement as a goal. It can happen, but trying to make it happen creates a situation where some pairs will feel pressure to go along with it even if they’re not a good match, which is a recipe for further drama. If there’s no goal like that, then people can feel the freedom to keep their connection loose if they feel like it.

Landlords drive up the price of housing by forcing regular home buyers to compete with investors. That’s why most people can’t afford to own a home.

Why would you pick such a hot guy with such a fuck you attitude though? Dude is a poster boy for how screwed the system is that even someone as wealthy as him couldn’t get coverage.

Like I never get these patsy claims - who is recruiting for this and how? Why are they so bad at it? Why would they pick such a sympathetic target? Why pick someone with such a clear and obvious motive and then let the media hum and haw about how “the motive isn’t clear”? Why not control the narrative better than this?

Sorry, I don’t buy it. The cops could easily have planted the gun on the guy even if he did it. That’s what they do. The story still adds up, it just makes a conviction harder to achieve now, which is honestly great news.

I’ll be honest, after seeing the public’s reaction, and weighing his options for a week, he may have simply decided that whether or not he could beat the rap then he’d be a hero in the history books forever. He could dine out on that for the rest of his life. Even in prison I bet he’d be well treated by the inmates, if not the guards.

There’s a decent chance he gets some of that sweet sweet jury nullification though. I mean he’s clearly a risk taker, maybe he decided to roll the dice. The cops being the dumbest shits possible about planting evidence will only help him in that regard.

Anyway, I don’t think it’s so impossible he deliberately got caught with his manifesto. It’s possible he destroyed the gun, then was willing to get caught and they planted evidence. Maybe they did it out of force of habit, or they were just so hyped on what big heroes they were being they couldn’t help themselves.