Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
I'm trying to think whether you learn about the formal name and conjugation when learning English as a second language and I don't actually think you do. That said, you obviously do learn the construction, and as I also learned German and Latin in high school, the subjunctive was properly defined there. Spanish came later for me, and also has a subjunctive (which most Spaniards get wrong too).
That said, language and its rules work together, and unless you want the different states to slowly but surely drift apart to speak entirely different local dialects/languages, you need to agree on rules and vocabulary that are taught across the nation (and as far else where your language is used). You then need to use that vocabulary and rules and teach them to the next generation.
The rules and vocabulary can obviously change over time to reflect changes in the language, but you generally don't want them to change too fast either. English is actually relatively fast changing. Shakespeare is already very different from modern English. But at least you can mostly decipher it. Go further back and English is an entirely different language...
Meanwhile in Spanish, Cervantes has archaic words, but is very similar to modern Spanish. It's probably more similar to contemporary Spanish than even Jane Austen or Mark Twain are to contemporary English on either side of the pond.
That said, Spanish has similarly different forms to English, with different Latin American countries curating their own rules and vocabularies, as well as the RAE doing that for Spain, and the differences are of a similar magnitude as between American, Irish, and British English. However, you do need those rules and vocabularies to be curated, or local dialects (d)evolve even faster. An example might be from various creole languages, which (d)evolved rapidly from the base tongue to accommodate large numbers of non-native speakers. Nowadays, Nigerian Pidgin, Jamaican Patois or Philippino Chabacano are unintelligible to native English or Spanish speakers. Good luck having a United States of America if the north, southz east and west can't even communicate together...
On August 30 2024 13:47 IsraelWilliams wrote: If someone is adamant about their views and becomes more resistant when exposed to new ideas, it’s likely that their stance is firmly held. The goal should be to engage with those who are open-minded and willing to reconsider their perspectives. Repeated exposure to different viewpoints, especially on serious topics like accusations of genocide, can influence those who are still undecided or open to change.Even convincing a small percentage of people can have a significant impact. If you’re able to shift the perspective of just one person, it’s a meaningful achievement. Each individual reached contributes to a broader understanding and can potentially inspire others to reconsider their views as well.
On August 30 2024 08:48 Acrofales wrote: I'm trying to think whether you learn about the formal name and conjugation when learning English as a second language and I don't actually think you do. That said, you obviously do learn the construction, and as I also learned German and Latin in high school, the subjunctive was properly defined there. Spanish came later for me, and also has a subjunctive (which most Spaniards get wrong too).
That said, language and its rules work together, and unless you want the different states to slowly but surely drift apart to speak entirely different local dialects/languages, you need to agree on rules and vocabulary that are taught across the nation (and as far else where your language is used). You then need to use that vocabulary and rules and teach them to the next generation.
The rules and vocabulary can obviously change over time to reflect changes in the language, but you generally don't want them to change too fast either. English is actually relatively fast changing. Shakespeare is already very different from modern English. But at least you can mostly decipher it. Go further back and English is an entirely different language...
Meanwhile in Spanish, Cervantes has archaic words, but is very similar to modern Spanish. It's probably more similar to contemporary Spanish than even Jane Austen or Mark Twain are to contemporary English on either side of the pond.
That said, Spanish has similarly different forms to English, with different Latin American countries curating their own rules and vocabularies, as well as the RAE doing that for Spain, and the differences are of a similar magnitude as between American, Irish, and British English. However, you do need those rules and vocabularies to be curated, or local dialects (d)evolve even faster. An example might be from various creole languages, which (d)evolved rapidly from the base tongue to accommodate large numbers of non-native speakers. Nowadays, Nigerian Pidgin, Jamaican Patois or Philippino Chabacano are unintelligible to native English or Spanish speakers. Good luck having a United States of America if the north, southz east and west can't even communicate together...
There is also, at least in polish and I suspect also in other languages, huge difference between langauge spoken and written. What passes in speech often is not allowed in writing. And even in writing itself there are levels of rigor. What would be allowed in a tweet or a forum post might not be allowed in a book and many things that are ok in a regular book might not be ok in scientific publication or legal document.
That's because many people gating these text from being freely publicized try to weed out as many interpretations as possible other than the actually intended one. Imagine if legislation could be interpreted freely, then what's the point of having one?
Conveying ideas is difficult. Having a good enough grasp of even your native language to accurately express what you actually mean in every cicrumstance is quite the difficult task. And then you have layers of social convention and people having to interpret your language etc. Language is a fascinating, but flawed, solution to a very profound problem.
On August 30 2024 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: JD Vance gave a speech at a firefighters union event at the International Association of Firefighters Convention.
On August 30 2024 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: JD Vance gave a speech at a firefighters union event at the International Association of Firefighters Convention.
Didn't he get cheered for that last one? I mean, I'm all for JD Vance bashing, but if those are the highlights, it didn't go so badly?
That last one had both cheers and boos. I think most of Trump's, Harris's, and Walz's rallies haven't had full-on boos like this one of Vance's, but I could be wrong.
It's so crazy to me how quickly we've gone full circle from "why mute mics during presidential debates?" to "holy hell just keep his darn mic muted when it's not his turn" to "keep the mics on, the world needs to hear his out-of-turn ranting!"
I really don't get the people who think Trump having a hot mic is a bad thing for him. What can he say that we haven't heard before? Do people really think it would cost him even 0.1% in the polls if Trump called Kamala the N word?
Democrats should want Kamala to be able to give her answers clearly and without Trump shouting over her. That will do a lot more then Trump shouting something stupid #273154
I think analysis in 2020 concluded that Trump's unhinged behavior during debates when not his turn did hurt him to some extent, although I'm not sure how much. You'd think that would matter even less this time around, though.
On September 01 2024 02:17 Gorsameth wrote: I really don't get the people who think Trump having a hot mic is a bad thing for him. What can he say that we haven't heard before? Do people really think it would cost him even 0.1% in the polls if Trump called Kamala the N word?
Democrats should want Kamala to be able to give her answers clearly and without Trump shouting over her. That will do a lot more then Trump shouting something stupid #273154
It's mostly based on the perception that he'd turn off at least a handful of middle class white women that are already reluctant because of the abortion stuff.
I don't think that's really the core of it though. Basically Harris wants to be able to interrupt Trump's lies. Trump's team doesn't like that prospect and Trump himself is confident it wouldn't phase him (hence the muddled messaging).
On voters it's kinda tricky because both candidates have a base of supporters for which there's essentially nothing they could do to lose their votes (Harris could call Palestinians "Sand N-" and everyone supporting her here would still support her). If Trump dropped an N-bomb on Kamala at a debate he'd certainly lose some voters, but also probably gain some disaffected white nationalist voters in their stead (this vulnerability is part of why Democrats are leaning so hard into nationalism and patriotism while engaged in genocide).
I'd like to believe that it'd net out to at least a marginal loss of support, but the US's depravity seems to know no bounds.
On September 01 2024 02:17 Gorsameth wrote: I really don't get the people who think Trump having a hot mic is a bad thing for him. What can he say that we haven't heard before? Do people really think it would cost him even 0.1% in the polls if Trump called Kamala the N word?
Democrats should want Kamala to be able to give her answers clearly and without Trump shouting over her. That will do a lot more then Trump shouting something stupid #273154
It's mostly based on the perception that he'd turn off at least a handful of middle class white women that are already reluctant because of the abortion stuff.
I don't think that's really the core of it though. Basically Harris wants to be able to interrupt Trump's lies. Trump's team doesn't like that prospect and Trump himself is confident it wouldn't phase him (hence the muddled messaging).
On voters it's kinda tricky because both candidates have a base of supporters for which there's essentially nothing they could do to lose their votes (Harris could call Palestinians "Sand N-" and everyone supporting her here would still support her). If Trump dropped an N-bomb on Kamala at a debate he'd certainly lose some voters, but also probably gain some disaffected white nationalist voters in their stead (this vulnerability is part of why Democrats are leaning so hard into nationalism and patriotism while engaged in genocide).
I'd like to believe that it'd net out to at least a marginal loss of support, but the US's depravity seems to know no bounds.
I didn't think about Kamala wanting to shout over Trump, that could be an angle to it indeed. thank you.
On September 01 2024 02:17 Gorsameth wrote: I really don't get the people who think Trump having a hot mic is a bad thing for him. What can he say that we haven't heard before? Do people really think it would cost him even 0.1% in the polls if Trump called Kamala the N word?
Democrats should want Kamala to be able to give her answers clearly and without Trump shouting over her. That will do a lot more then Trump shouting something stupid #273154
It's mostly based on the perception that he'd turn off at least a handful of middle class white women that are already reluctant because of the abortion stuff.
I don't think that's really the core of it though. Basically Harris wants to be able to interrupt Trump's lies. Trump's team doesn't like that prospect and Trump himself is confident it wouldn't phase him (hence the muddled messaging).
On voters it's kinda tricky because both candidates have a base of supporters for which there's essentially nothing they could do to lose their votes (Harris could call Palestinians "Sand N-" and everyone supporting her here would still support her). If Trump dropped an N-bomb on Kamala at a debate he'd certainly lose some voters, but also probably gain some disaffected white nationalist voters in their stead (this vulnerability is part of why Democrats are leaning so hard into nationalism and patriotism while engaged in genocide).
I'd like to believe that it'd net out to at least a marginal loss of support, but the US's depravity seems to know no bounds.
I didn't think about Kamala wanting to shout over Trump, that could be an angle to it indeed. thank you.
I can't imagine Harris interrupting or shouting over Trump. That also doesn't really make much sense to me, as Harris's image is far more composed and adult than Trump's.
On September 01 2024 02:17 Gorsameth wrote: I really don't get the people who think Trump having a hot mic is a bad thing for him. What can he say that we haven't heard before? Do people really think it would cost him even 0.1% in the polls if Trump called Kamala the N word?
Democrats should want Kamala to be able to give her answers clearly and without Trump shouting over her. That will do a lot more then Trump shouting something stupid #273154
It's mostly based on the perception that he'd turn off at least a handful of middle class white women that are already reluctant because of the abortion stuff.
I don't think that's really the core of it though. Basically Harris wants to be able to interrupt Trump's lies. Trump's team doesn't like that prospect and Trump himself is confident it wouldn't phase him (hence the muddled messaging).
On voters it's kinda tricky because both candidates have a base of supporters for which there's essentially nothing they could do to lose their votes (Harris could call Palestinians "Sand N-" and everyone supporting her here would still support her). If Trump dropped an N-bomb on Kamala at a debate he'd certainly lose some voters, but also probably gain some disaffected white nationalist voters in their stead (this vulnerability is part of why Democrats are leaning so hard into nationalism and patriotism while engaged in genocide).
I'd like to believe that it'd net out to at least a marginal loss of support, but the US's depravity seems to know no bounds.
I didn't think about Kamala wanting to shout over Trump, that could be an angle to it indeed. thank you.
I can't imagine Harris interrupting or shouting over Trump. That also doesn't really make much sense to me, as Harris's image is far more composed and adult than Trump's.
And it doesn't work. In a shouting match, facts don't matter, just who is better at shouting. Trumps core weakness should be that he is just bullshitting and all the shit he says doesn't actually correlate to reality. That is what independent fact-checkers should state.
If Trumps opponent in a debate claims that he is bullshitting and making up stuff, he will just say "nuh-uh", and then we just have two people disagreeing, and really any of them could be right.
We already saw that getting down in the mud is a bad idea. Hillary tried it in one debate and while Trump looked awful, so did Hillary. Coming out of the debate covered in shit is not a good look when you're running a campaign claiming to stand above the shit flinging. Trump, obviously, didn't and doesn't care. He invariably claims he wins any debate he participates in, even those with only losers.
On September 01 2024 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote: On voters it's kinda tricky because both candidates have a base of supporters for which there's essentially nothing they could do to lose their votes (Harris could call Palestinians "Sand N-" and everyone supporting her here would still support her).
It's true a lot of Kamala's voters will still vote for her even if she does unappealing things because of how strong the desire to vote against Trump is... but just to check, by "would still support her" do you basically just mean "would still vote for her"? Full-throated support is far different than holding your nose and voting.
It probably has a lot to do with the fact that their last candidate sunk his entire campaign by answering questions uninterrupted at the debate. Kamala's low approval rating was partially attributable to her poor speaking skills. Judging by how she's been squirreled away from the media it's obvious they don't want her front and center answering questions. Having a black Indian woman be spoken over by a white man is probably a preferable look than allowing her to answer questions uninterrupted.
EPT
