|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 25 2016 01:43 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 01:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On February 25 2016 01:34 travis wrote:
Well it's not really politics that we are talking about anymore, but since we are complaining about english - I would like to say that it is annoying that so much slang these days make no sense. It used to be that slang had some sort of basis or derivation that could be explained to you. Nowadays it's like people just throw random shit together that sounds good to some people, and then it catches on. I don't like that.
Give me some examples? The meaning is usually contrived but it's there. ratchet, fetch stick out to me but I know there are more. maybe they do have some origin that makes sense. if so, please enlighten me lol edit: basic is another one. i guess it *kind* of makes sense, but only in a way that is really ignorant and stupid lol
Ratchet: corruption of "wretched".
Was fetch ever actually a thing? I thought it was just started by Mean Girls and ironically caught on.
Basic: As in, nothing particularly interesting about them/their personality/their appearance. So that characteristic, and by extension the person, are "basic".
|
On February 25 2016 01:43 Deathstar wrote:
You cast a shadow. You don't throw a shadow or shade for that matter. You don't throw air. You blow air.
Fetch comes from fetching. Ratchet comes from the definition of the word: “a situation or process that is perceived to be deteriorating”, as in someone is trying to look pretty, but it is going down hill. Edit: Or what was stated above.
None of these are hard figure out. You throw shade on someone, like casting a shadow. Also not hard.
And lets not even get into all the non-sense words that video games use. Look up the origins of “gank” and find out it was a bunch of white kids trying sound like bad ass gangsters on the internet.
Or cool. Or even the term hip. That something is fly. That outfit is hot.
Are we really going to do this? Or can we just admit that maybe we are not as up to date on new slang and way to lazy to google.
|
On February 25 2016 01:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 01:43 Deathstar wrote:
You cast a shadow. You don't throw a shadow or shade for that matter. You don't throw air. You blow air. Fetch comes from fetching. Ratchet comes from the definition of the word: “a situation or process that is perceived to be deteriorating”, as in someone is trying to look pretty, but it is going down hill. Edit: Or what was stated above. None of these are hard figure out. You throw shade on someone, like casting a shadow. Also not hard. And lets not even get into all the non-sense words that video games use. Look up the origins of “gank” and find out it was a bunch of white kids trying sound like bad ass gangsters on the internet. Or cool. Or even the term hip. That something is fly. That outfit is hot. Are we really going to do this? Or can we just admit that maybe we are not as up to date on new slang and way to lazy to google.
I too hate when putting on good looking clothes violates thermodynamics.
I believe 'throwing a glance' is a pretty common idiom where you throw something non physical.
|
what...what happened here. Someone threw shade at the train and derailed it (this is correct usage don't challenge me). Can we get back to more important topics like Donald Trump's hair and how it will be fantastic at foreign policy?
I read somewhere that if it came down to Hillary vs. Trump, establishment republicans might back Hillary for president. Goes to show just how fractured everything is this election season. At this point, I think the electorate will get what it deserves, not what it needs. What a time to be alive.
|
we already are doing this plansix, it's too late.
the old slang words you listed are easier for me to solve than the newer ones. especially ratchet. is any of this very important to me? no not really.
edit: okay ill stop derailing. wtf were with the number of voters for trump in nevada vs dem voters, that's crazy
|
Can trump please say something crazy so we can stop discussing language dynamics
|
United States41995 Posts
What is this train that is derailed? Some kind of newfangled caravan?
|
On February 25 2016 01:55 travis wrote:
we already are doing this plansix, it's too late.
the old slang words you listed are easier for me to solve than the newer ones. especially ratchet. is any of this very important to me? no not really.
edit: okay ill stop derailing. wtf were with the number of voters for trump in nevada vs dem voters, that's crazy
I am perplexed by your confusion on the subject mainly because the service known as google exists. You are clearly aware of how language evolves at some level, so it is baffling that “ratchet is weird!” didn’t evolve into “I wonder where that came from? If only there was a digital service to answer my question on this subject.”
|
On February 25 2016 01:55 strongwind wrote:
what...what happened here. Someone threw shade at the train and derailed it (this is correct usage don't challenge me). Can we get back to more important topics like Donald Trump's hair and how it will be fantastic at foreign policy?
I read somewhere that if it came down to Hillary vs. Trump, establishment republicans might back Hillary for president. Goes to show just how fractured everything is this election season. At this point, I think the electorate will get what it deserves, not what it needs. What a time to be alive.
Fuck knows what's going on anymore. I've seen a lot of Sanders supporters say they'll get behind Trump if Bernie doesn't make it. Personally I think Trump's got this thing in the bag so I'm probably going to register as a Democrat to push Sanders as my #2 pick.
I think the election's becoming more about establishment vs. anti-establishment than left vs. right at this point. Especially since each party's primary is divided along those lines right now. Of course by the end of the primaries that might change.
|
On February 25 2016 02:02 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 01:55 strongwind wrote:
what...what happened here. Someone threw shade at the train and derailed it (this is correct usage don't challenge me). Can we get back to more important topics like Donald Trump's hair and how it will be fantastic at foreign policy?
I read somewhere that if it came down to Hillary vs. Trump, establishment republicans might back Hillary for president. Goes to show just how fractured everything is this election season. At this point, I think the electorate will get what it deserves, not what it needs. What a time to be alive. Fuck knows what's going on anymore. I've seen a lot of Sanders supporters say they'll get behind Trump if Bernie doesn't make it. Personally I think Trump's got this thing in the bag so I'm probably going to register as a Democrat to push Sanders as my #2 pick. I think the election's becoming more about establishment vs. anti-establishment than left vs. right at this point. Especially since each party's primary is divided along those lines right now. Of course by the end of the primaries that might change.
Politics in all developed countries are becoming about establishment vs anti-establishment tbh, though it's a surprise that among the "big" developed countries it's the least democratic and most establishment-dominated one that currently seems to have the most chances of being governed by a supposedly anti-establishment candidate.
|
During Obama’s first run, a lot of people were concerned that her supporters would swap sides and many of them said they would. That did not turn out to be the case in any way. I do not take those claims seriously at all. It’s a very much “I’m going to go home and talk my ball with me” sort of threat.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large.
|
I say Bernie should reverse course and go the Trump route. Say crazy stuff to get free press, wear a toupee, punch Hillary in the face. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
As long as he doesn't take SuperPAC money he's golden. This is what the people want, Bernie. Please try to keep up.
|
I'm pretty surprised by how many people here don't understand modern black memeage tbqhwyf. I know nerds start acting like old men quick, but I thought the demographic of this website was relatively young.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 25 2016 02:13 strongwind wrote:
I say Bernie should reverse course and go the Trump route. Say crazy stuff to get free press, wear a toupee, punch Hillary in the face. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
As long as he doesn't take SuperPAC money he's golden. This is what the people want, Bernie. Please try to keep up.
We're gonna build a wall, and Wall Street is gonna pay for it.
|
On February 25 2016 02:15 ZackAttack wrote:
I'm pretty surprised by how many people here don't understand modern black memeage tbqhwyf. I know nerds start acting like old men quick, but I thought the demographic of this website was relatively young.
A website based on a 10 year old RTS for “real gamersTM” acting like old men and being confused by new, hip slang? Never, ever.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff
|
On February 25 2016 02:12 oneofthem wrote:
not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large.
Peaceful world order? Depends what you mean, submission through work and poverty are pretty violent.
And yes, that world order will end eventually. Everything that starts has an end. Maybe, with many "third-world" countries growing in economic power, it'd be better to end that order right now and create conflict right now, at a time when the Western world isn't behing the rest of the world in terms of economy, technology and military, instead of waiting until that order explodes upon our faces?
|
On February 25 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:15 ZackAttack wrote:
I'm pretty surprised by how many people here don't understand modern black memeage tbqhwyf. I know nerds start acting like old men quick, but I thought the demographic of this website was relatively young. A website based on a 10 year old RTS for “real gamersTM” acting like old men and being confused by new, hip slang? Never, ever.
hey im young and hip you whippersnapper
|
On February 25 2016 02:13 strongwind wrote:
I say Bernie should reverse course and go the Trump route. Say crazy stuff to get free press, wear a toupee, punch Hillary in the face. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
As long as he doesn't take SuperPAC money he's golden. This is what the people want, Bernie. Please try to keep up.
That's his real hair btw.
The other two though, I completely agree. Well at least the first one. You don't need to pay money to advertise if the press do it for free. I'd actually argue that all the scandals are good for Hillary because it keeps her and not Sanders in the spotlight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
