The name “pro-life” is absurd. Too far from reality

I think you all need a new name for yourselves. It sounds absurd at this point

I’ve noted that you are a superior human who doesn’t waste your time with celebrity nonsense. I assume that’s what you were going for with this comment.

When the 270 mark is passed, it has the effect of making every vote equal everywhere.

Right, and this is bad for the Republican Party, so they will do everything in their power to stop it.

I love the concept of it, but the thing about the NPVIC is that it’s 0% of the way there until it’s 100% of the way there. So while 77% seems like we’re close, and there is legislation pending that could get us to 95%, the only reason it seems to be going forward steadily is that it does nothing unless you go all the way.

The moment there is the prospect of legislation in a state that would get that last 5%, not only will that legislation be fought tooth and nail, but every state that has already entered the compact will have to fight like hell to keep it in place, not once but constantly forever. Because if you’re just over the threshold then almost any state backing out of the compact will nullify the whole thing again.

It seems too fragile to be a workable solution. But I guess I don’t see anything wrong with trying!

thoughtful people

There’s your problem right there

If they are non-assholes then they should be glad you made them aware

I think you replied to the wrong post

I think the very important point you’re missing is that schools did not exist in fear of school shootings before Columbine. There were no lockdown drills and crazy security measures for entering and leaving the building. So making a big loud noise would not make people instantly think someone was shooting up the school like it very well might today.

“You” and “thou” come from different roots. They are not simply different orthographies like “ye” and “the”.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/thou

https://www.etymonline.com/word/you

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/18629

If “literally” means “figuratively,” then we literally have no word for “literally.”

It’s worth pointing out that you just used the word for “literally” and we knew which sense of the word you meant through context. Just like the verb “dust” can mean to put a layer of small particles on something but can also mean to remove the small particles from something. Humans are able to sort these things out.

However, one of the best things about language is that if a need actually arises for more clarity about “literalness”, a solution will naturally emerge to address it.

Even the word “literal” started out as a word that pertained specifically to the written word, and scholarly things, and its sense evolved to refer to things not necessarily written down, to the present meaning of “the most straightforward interpretation of what I’m saying”. A need arose and a word filled the need.

I’ve always wondered why so many people have this reaction, rather than seeing it as a cool thing that languages can do. Namely, taking bits from other languages and making them into something new.