I wasn’t in anyway even trying to imply that these actions weren’t carried out by protesters. That wasn’t the point I was making. Can’t you see the difference between “I think it was wrong to do XYZ at the protest” and “I don’t think there should be a protest”?
I just watched the video and it didn’t say she denounced the protesters, it said she was one of the officials who strongly condemned the graffiti, flag burning, and raising the Palestinian flag. Specifically those actions. Not the protesters themselves or the fact that they were protesting at all.
If your statement was based on that segment alone, then I would say you mischaracterized the situation in a way that makes Harris come off worse.
Source?
OP is using Dutch, not German
A good rule of thumb is that any word etymology that is an acronym is probably false if the word is more than 100 years old.
What, you’ve never heard of a taste test?
I’m no fan of organized religion at all but:
“None of you has faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
Sounds pretty similarly chill to me.
The problem is that these texts have so many contradictory statements that they can be used to justify anything anyway.
“I don’t really like X, but as long as they don’t then do Y I guess it’s okay”
They always do Y
It’s not a weird caste system. It’s just that people have always primarily just used SMS in the US, and if the people texting all happen to have iPhones, then there are some extra features tacked on (from the perception of the end user). Having been in many many large group chats for various activities and events, where it’s never 100% apple and just SMS, absolutely nobody cares at all. It’s just that maybe some teens and tweens use the colors to judge and exclude, which they famously find justifications for doing in every generation, and probably even that is overblown by the media.
There simply was never an incentive to kind of force everybody to move over to e.g. WhatsApp, and people don’t bother to do something like that en masse without a need to.
I don’t know. When I actually observe what people on the left say, they offer a path and don’t just rail against the right. It just doesn’t make headlines.
And you can say that means they need to do better at controlling the narrative, but I think the problem is that negative stuff has an inherent advantage when it comes to making headlines. So when the right does their outrageous negative shit: automatic headlines. When the left offers hope and reason: crickets.
Doesn’t mean the left can shrug their shoulders and not strive for better, but they are at an inherent disadvantage because of the nature of our society. (And if you want to say this is largely the fault of capitalism out of control then you’d get no argument from me.)
Yes, it’s clear as day that he’s trying to illustrate that Trump isn’t interested in actually solving problems. And if he actually takes the bait and does it, it would basically force the GOP’s hand in Congress to pass a bill.
If this were my grandma, then sure, I wouldn’t fault her. But if it’s someone making life-altering decisions based on their understanding of it, someone who has been doing so for a very long time, and who has support staff who ostensibly try to make sure that person understands the topic at hand, and yet after all these years of hearing about tech-related topics and deciding on them, the person — who has every ability to retire if the world is moving too fast for them to keep up, but has opted not to — asks a question as absurd as this… I actually am going to fault that person.
deleted by creator
I’ll grant you that once we have adapted and incorporated the words, we are no longer borrowing them. Maybe we should stop calling them loanwords at that point. But while they’re still new and don’t yet fit in, I would say that borrowing sounds about right.
Well, the definition of “loanword” means it isn’t just being used ad hoc because it is brand new, but rather that it has been incorporated into the language at least to some extent!
It’s funny that we call these words “loanwords” that we “borrow”. That implies they don’t belong to our language and that we don’t have the right to modify them however we want; it even implies that eventually we’ll return them to their language of origin. It would be much more accurate to say these words have been acquired, incorporated, or assimilated. That’s what languages actually do with words they get from other languages.
Personally, I enjoy the organic nature of the exchange of words between languages. Different languages and cultures treat foreign words differently. Some try to stick as close to the original pronunciation as possible, and some happily alter the word. This can even be handled differently by the same language and culture at a different period of time. For example, in English we have the words “gender” and “genre”, both borrowed from the same French word at different times. The older one is pronounced in an English-sounding way and the newer one is pronounced as close to the French way as possible. I find this kind of stuff very amusing.
Re-reading I can see you weren’t actually claiming English speakers needed to use the Italian pronunciation. Some people do claim that so I just kind of continued my lifelong argument with those people :)
I agree that basic sounds from one language that don’t exist in another language are interesting.
I mean, this word does have an English pronunciation that is distinct from the Italian pronunciation, which follows English phonology.
What would you prefer people use to refer to “Reddit-like” ActivityPub clients, and what would you prefer for “Twitter-like” ones?
She skipped Netanyahu’s speech in protest and called for an end to the war afterwards.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/harris-netanyahu-israel-hamas-ceasefire/index.html?cid=ios_app
I’m not in any way arguing that she’s doing everything right on this issue. I think she should go more strongly, although I can also acknowledge that someone at this level is walking a tightrope.
However, if anything, her choice to skip the speech in protest associates her with the protest going on outside, and so she went out of her way to separate herself from the actions at the protest that went too far.
You can argue over whether or not some protesters did go too far, or what else she could say and do that would actually help and be effective, I’m just asking for people to strive for accuracy when making claims. This is an important election, in which I genuinely believe that Harris winning the election will lead to a better outcome for Palestinians than any other outcome. I want to be vigilant about what she says but I also don’t want to look for some excuse to paint her with the same brush as everyone else and write her off.