Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Regardless of China's particular system of government, and regardless of any allegations of crimes against residents, Americans would find some reason to hate it, because they (correctly) see it as the biggest threat to what was once American hegemony. And if the positions were reversed, we'd be learning about reports of how impoverished blacks in the south are sentenced to decades in private prisons for minor drug offenses to keep them full and to provide cheap prison labor.

[Saruku]

You cannot advocate for America's role in the world and then be shocked when it helps Saudi Arabia starve Yemen and helped to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Bolivia.

[West_Midlander]

Trump 2024
Ivanka 2028 (but not as VP 2025-2029)

[Ferguson97]

"I oppose gay marriage because that's what my religion says" is not a good excuse for opposing gay marriage. If anything, this should be evidence to you that it's not a very good religion. Why would a loving God make people gay and then say it's evil?

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Trump 2024
Ivanka 2028 (but not as VP 2025-2029)

Wow, brilliant take. It really makes you think and reconsider your perspective.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The usage of the pronoun "it" to refer to little children, which apparently is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

[MoreThanPolitics]

Martin Lee is nowhere near to the "Father of Democracy" in Hong Kong -- it just makes me puke every time a journalist use this term on him. He's more like a traitor to HK!

Bottom line: he's no Lee Teng-hui.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I have a strict rule of using "he or she" or "they" when referring to children when gender is unknown for reasons that, if ever fleshed out fully, would come off as obtusely political.

[afleitch]

I have twin neices. I make a point to call them by their names in conversation rather than 'the girls'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

[Sol]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

Well, "they" is a pretty easy lift since it's been used that way since Chaucer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

Well, "they" is a pretty easy lift since it's been used that way since Chaucer.

I know. That doesn't make it any less grammatically clunky.

The singular/plural "you" has also been a thing for centuries and it still gives me headaches. I'm desperately hoping "y'all" becomes standard English so we can have a distinction again.

[RINO Tom]

We are well past the phase where healthcare experts "scaring people into taking COVID seriously" (with a dazzling of how dangerous it is) is doing much good, and we would be better off if they pivoted toward a message of hope/optimism and tailored it more to individual mitigation of risk rather than a collective societal effort to stamp out a ridiculously contagious virus.

People in their 80s who are lonely and depressed right now (like my recently widowed grandmother) and haven't been going anywhere or seeing anyone to be safe need to be told that Christmas with their relatives WILL happen this year, no matter what, and that a vaccination for COVID-19 will hopefully water down the effects of future variants on your body, at least to the point of not being more life-threatening than other diseases these people were fine with in previous years, like pneumonia.  The potential audience who is out there that isn't taking steps to "slow the spread" but would be totally swayed by a doctor on TV saying that they really shouldn't be seeing their relatives is approximately zero, for better or for worse.  It's just how it is.

When there are CNN articles saying that two FULLY vaccinated individuals can "PROBABLY" hang out together but they should STILL social distance, it's quite simply counterproductive.  If that standard isn't good enough, you're effectively saying "normal life" is unachievable in the foreseeable future, and people are simply going to go, "Welp, guess I have to live with the risk of COVID variants then, because I am not going to risk dying of natural causes in the next six months anyway and never seeing my grandkids again."  In short, the narrative coming from the public health community should be a LOT more strategic if they actually want to positively influence people's behavior.  No one is questioning if what they're saying is scientifically accurate, but we all ignored the strictest science on respiratory viruses for YEARS before this, and that is going to have to be the standard, like it or not.

[TheReckoning]

Most people would have a very hard time justifying their political views if they were actually put under heavy scrutiny, and this is true regardless of where one is on the political spectrum.

This is due to people picking political views of their personal feelings and beliefs instead of actual fact.

[West_Midlander]

Most people would have a very hard time justifying their political views if they were actually put under heavy scrutiny, and this is true regardless of where one is on the political spectrum.

This is due to people picking political views of their personal feelings and beliefs instead of actual fact.

Very true. I, for one, try to weigh the facts as well as I can but as with anyone emotions/ethics and values + religion plays a role.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

I wasn't aware that "y'all" or "youse" could apply to a single person.


EDIT: Joke already made, I see.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

I wasn't aware that "y'all" or "youse" could apply to a single person.


EDIT: Joke already made, I see.

Not a joke, I unironically like "y'all". I've never heard "youse" used in the wild yet, but I'm not opposed to it either.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

I wasn't aware that "y'all" or "youse" could apply to a single person.


EDIT: Joke already made, I see.

Not a joke, I unironically like "y'all". I've never heard "youse" used in the wild yet, but I'm not opposed to it either.

I've spent much time in Philadelphia and its environs but never heard anyone say "youse" or "youse guys". I've never at all been to Western Pennsylvania, and thus never had the chance to hear "yinz". Both are abominations. I started saying "y'all" as an ironic affectation when I was a teenager, but I wouldn't have it any other way now.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

I wasn't aware that "y'all" or "youse" could apply to a single person.


EDIT: Joke already made, I see.

Not a joke, I unironically like "y'all". I've never heard "youse" used in the wild yet, but I'm not opposed to it either.

I mostly (only?) know it from humorous or mafia-specific portrayals of Italian-Americans.

[Alcibiades]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

I wasn't aware that "y'all" or "youse" could apply to a single person.


EDIT: Joke already made, I see.

Not a joke, I unironically like "y'all". I've never heard "youse" used in the wild yet, but I'm not opposed to it either.

I mostly (only?) know it from humorous or mafia-specific portrayals of Italian-Americans.

As far as I was aware, “youse” is mostly confined to certain British regional dialects, most notably Scouse.

[Torrain]

The usage of "it" to refer to little children, which apparenty is not uncommon in English, irks me and strikes me as dehumanizing.

It irks many English-speakers and strikes them as dehumanizing as well. I never hear anybody who doesn't vocally hate children use it, (ETA) except sometimes for infants--and it bothers me when used for infants as well.

I'm the opposite way, as I wish "it" could be normalized as a gender-neutral pronoun that can apply to human beings regardless of age. I don't understand what's so terrible about things and people sharing pronouns. Romance languages do that all the time (in the other direction) and I don't think that has rendered the relevant countries more callous toward human beings.

Of course, I know it's probably too late. The grammatically clunky singular-they is probably the best we'll ever get to a gender-neutral pronoun. As if having the same pronoun for 2nd p. sing. and 2nd p. plur. wasn't confusing enough already.

I wasn't aware that "y'all" or "youse" could apply to a single person.


EDIT: Joke already made, I see.

Not a joke, I unironically like "y'all". I've never heard "youse" used in the wild yet, but I'm not opposed to it either.

I mostly (only?) know it from humorous or mafia-specific portrayals of Italian-Americans.

As far as I was aware, “youse” is mostly confined to certain British regional dialects, most notably Scouse.

It's endemic in certain Scottish regions, particuarly Glasgow, some parts of Edinburgh, and Fife, alongside other made up words like 'jamp' (past particle of jump). We're devoted to mangling the English language.

Definitely used as a plural though.

Also, there are variants in Northern Ireland - where my uncle's rallying cry is:
"Are all of yousens' coming?"

[DC Al Fine]

A lot of people say youse in Nova Scotia particularly if you are lower class and/or from the country.

[Sestak]

Most people would have a very hard time justifying their political views if they were actually put under heavy scrutiny, and this is true regardless of where one is on the political spectrum.

This is due to people picking political views of their personal feelings and beliefs instead of actual fact.

Imagine being delusional enough to believe that it's remotely possible to base all of your political views solely on "facts" without any input from 'personal beliefs or feelings'.

[TheReckoning]

Most people would have a very hard time justifying their political views if they were actually put under heavy scrutiny, and this is true regardless of where one is on the political spectrum.

This is due to people picking political views of their personal feelings and beliefs instead of actual fact.

Imagine being delusional enough to believe that it's remotely possible to base all of your political views solely on "facts" without any input from 'personal beliefs or feelings'.

Where did I imply that? I definitely have some political positions which I base on beliefs. But if one really, really grilled me on this positions, I would have to admit at a certain point, there are at least partially based on my personal beliefs which I cannot prove.

But of course, many would deny this themselves.