Removed by mod

Honestly I would be completely fine with this as canon. I’d actually prefer it, because honestly it just fits better than the Tails I remember from Sonic Adventure 2 growing into a man-- something about that just wouldn’t sit right.

Yes but consider that not everyone is fortunate enough to grow up in diverse environments with exposure to other cultures. If everyone you’ve ever met from 0-18 is a redneck, how ya think they’ll react to x accent. That’s unfortunately your floor for expectable initial reactions from mutually non-impressed peoples. I’m not psychologist, figure you aren’t either, but there is some principle that elaborates on this, keywords probably akin to cultural exposure in child development, environmental conditioning, and ventures out into other related principles. But idfk what I’m talking about, take this as the ramblings of a madman or whatever.

yeah no I’m not taking that bait, bud.

Ok but you’re second paragraph raises a new issue, or moreso an angle to what I was originally being pessimistic of: is that really adequate linguistic knowledge to impart on the future generation?

I wasn’t taught they for animate, it for inanimate, or at least not that I recall. Maybe for a young child it could serve as a good rule of thumb to be reshaped in school. But besides that, I feel like it would cause more confusion for a non-native English speaker trying to learn the language if you shared that knowledge with them and then they in turn sublimate it into their personal linguist theory for some indeterminate amount of time. Then it could cause language barriers and potentially lead native English speakers to think less of them for their lack of grasp on what we call our stupid language where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter.

Then again, I can’t immediately conjure any examples of where this linguistic confusion may occur in this hypothetical English learner’s day-to-day life. But I personally wouldn’t be comfortable dispensing to a learner some less-than-entirely accurate disambiguation about our language, especially if I had reason to believe they could end up blindly parroting it.

This kinda worries me because I don’t want to imagine immigrants and future generations alike being conditioned to ignore nuances in dialogue due to ambiguity introduced by some quixotic lesson they received under the notion it was “good enough”.

Also, I hope you don’t mistake me for trying to argue, I simply enjoy the banter as that concern I shared is a very intriguing thought to me, and I appreciate your willingness to “debate”/discuss it. Otherwise: so true, the Internet was of course originally made so assholes could argue semantics, among optionally more productive things.

But “it” is for inanimate objects

Not quite. “It” is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to “the”. It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, “it” is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas “they” would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it’s more appropriate to use “it” but “they” could also work.

I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.

… ya know, this theory feels like it may actually hold water. In an ancient society, it seems very feasible that a starving vagrant would employ stories about an omnipotent being that rewards acts of kindness with eternal heavenly glory.

Is religion possibly the result of a diogenes persuading unemphatic peers into acting selflessly as a means of improving their quality of life?

Not to be confused with the fallacy that these essentials are exclusively the product of exchanging money-- while you can pay for better health and better safety, there are also things you can do with little to no money to improve those for yourself, though the freedom to do so unfortunately is not default and financial security does empower an individual to better use what resources are available to them-- maybe not everyone can trivially access hiking trails, or be in the health for it, and even then they should have a good pair of shoes, a water bottle, and reliable mode of transportation to/fro the trails, which again not everyone has unfortunately.

Imo, the idealistic answer is to work to ensure everyone an essential baseline level that can reliably empower them to live as healthy and opportune of lives as is reasonably possible, while of course having in place infrastructure and accomodations to those less fortunate in health and/or opportunity. I’d like to think this is more than a utopian idea, and closer to a reality than one might originally think, or perhaps I was somewhat unique or grossly digressed from the status quo in pessimistically believing that we might be far from this being a reality. Perhaps my pessimism was also influenced by my financial stress at the time, among the other throes of life.

https://github.com/StractOrg/stract

Don’t know enough to give a testimony on it. Majority or codebase is FOSS afaik. Sorta passed the sniff test? Free API is nice and works well, that’s enough for my purposes.

I mean why even when Stract is a thing

Helvetica Standard theme started playing in my head while reading the comments

Wtf does this have to do with her gender? Are you claiming she does not top the charts in celebrity carbon emissions, but is being used as the scapegoat instead of a man?

The Conservatives aren’t attacking her because of her gender, it’s because of their her influence. Misogyny has nothing to do with it, they’d do the exact same with any celebrity of any identity/orientation because they’re influence conflicts with their agenda, not because of their gender.

This smells a lot like ground-laying for radical feminist arguments, I can’t find any other reason you would be here making a mountain out of an imaginary anthill. Moreover, I can’t understand why anyone upvoting this would care to see a non-humorous PSA in a “hello fellow teens” vaporware frame on a surrealist/(whatever it’s called) shitposting community unless it is meant to be satire.

edit: gendered a pronoun to make it concise who the subject was

well yeah, you don’t speak with your mouth closed

If someone wants a tiny home, that’s their problem, not yours or mine.

before y’all try to “own” me or “ratio” me for not confirming to the hive mind, please kindly reread my comment and explain exactly what you think my motive was in writing this before replying. Anyone who fails to do that, whatever they could type holds no value in my tired eyes.

cishet white men: exist

some marginalized groups: “THEY ARE TRYING TO OPPRESS US, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HATES US AND IS PART OF THE SATAN WORSHIPPING WHITE CISHET PATRIARCHY AGENDA, THEY TOO COWARDLY TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND LET SOME OLD WHITE GUYS TELL THEM WHAT TO DO”

cishet white men: “fuck taxes, man. Btw when you figure we gonna get a sensible politician? Same shit we saw our parents wondered every four years when we were kids, amirite?”

July 2007 — a suggestive image of Wikipe-tan (not drawn by Kasuga) was proposed for use in the article on lolicon. The image was removed from Commons by Jimbo Wales, who called Wikipe-tan a “community mascot” who should not be subject to such “pedophilic sexualization”. Kasuga later drew a new image for the article which did not use Wikipe-tan.

Poor Jimbo ain’t get enough credit for putting up with this shit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

sigh Alexa, add 12 jars of stuffed olives to the grocery list…

I’m talking without the need to reboot or enter BIOS

The security on XP was comically bad. When people say “physical access is full access,” they aren’t even considering XP despite it being the textbook definition to the phrase. You were able to access the command line without even logging in.