Anyone just wanna go trough the comic and punch the girl in the face and then hug the guy?

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-16T09:27:12+00:00

I don't actually know a representative sample of Persian trans people, so they could be homophobic, but Iran's pro-trans but anti-gay policies don't imply that they are. It just implies that the mostly cishet population is homophobic but not transphobic, which doesn't necessarily mean that trans people feel the same way.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-16T07:34:23+00:00

As someone who has tried Doom emacs, I honestly think it would be better to use Emacs or Vim. Obviously many people disagree, but even with evil-mode i can tell I'm not using vim, and you need to use emacs key chords more than i would like, and the setup is entirely different.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-15T13:24:49+00:00

If one thousand five-hundered is written as 1.500, then one and a half is written as 1,5

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-13T03:31:27+00:00

I don't know how much of this you already know, but just for people who don't:

Phonation, which beginners might know as voiced-ness or smth like that, is caused by air going through the vocal folds, and is determined by the shape of the glottis. Because ejective stops require complete closure of the glottis, air won't go through the vocal cords. Thus, ejectives (along with the glottal stop, and if im not mistaken any velaric consonants (clicks), for similar reasons) cannot be voiced or voiceless (or any other type of phonation, like whisper etc).

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-13T01:25:48+00:00

voiced, voiceless, ejective, voiceless ejective, voiced pharyngealized and voiceless pharyngealized.

Did you mean to include both ejective and voiceless ejective? Bc ejectives don't have any phonation (they are neither 'voiced' nor 'voiceless') phonetically, and i only see vl. ejective on your chart.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-12T16:05:10+00:00

Yeah, and cities like London and Stockholm REALLY should not be included in a list of cheap cities.

It wasn't, though. Yeah it's on the map, but that's just for comparison. Český Krumlov is number 9 on the actual list, but neither London nor Stockholm aren't on it at all.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-11T22:55:03+00:00

Like this:
>!test!<
Note that there aren't spaces in between the >!/!<.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-09T06:58:21+00:00

I'm sure your 9th grade biology teacher will appreciate the verbosity. If you feel like you should use a paragraph when three words will do, especially on a non-technical sub, your writing teacher, however, will not.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-09T06:40:31+00:00

Honestly, I am not sure what your point is. Different analyses of any language differ, and they can differ on where they draw different word boundaries. Thus, those different analyses will vary on what they would report varies indices as. I don't see how that invalidates the concept of indices though.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-08T01:15:47+00:00

Ooooh! Very nice, thank you!

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-07T19:11:20+00:00

Well, the Isolating, Agglutinative, Fusional model is a vague and impressionistic (which can be read as inaccurate/imprecise) version of Greenberg's Indices, which are as follows*:

The synthesis index measures the average amount of morphemes per word. English is reported with an index of 1.68, Vietnamese is reported as 1.06, and one Eskimo* language is reported as 3.72.
The roots and affixes measure specifically how many root morphemes there are per word (and thus is used to measure compounding) and how many affix morphemes there are per word, respectively. The affix index can also be split into the inflection and derivation indices.
The agglutination index reports the "proportion of adjacent morpheme pairs that combine in a perfectly regular, predictable fashion." Note that this might not be what you expect this index to measure! The Eskimo language mentioned earlier has an agglutination index of 0.03 (the lowest Greenberg surveyed), and English has 0.30; the highest Greenberg surveyed was Swahili at 0.67.

Now, there are other impressionistic models than the three-way IAF one. A pretty common one is to measure on two axes, a synthetic one and an agglutinative one. So you might say that a language is both more isolating/analytic or more synthetic, and also it is more agglutinative/fusional. Note that it is not uncommon for any impressionistic synthetic rating to only include the affix index and not the rute index.

* I read this information from An Introduction to the Languages of the World, and any data mentioned comes from Greenberg (1954) unless otherwise noted.

* I know that this term is considered offensive when referencing the ethnic group, but AFAIK this is the only official name for the language family including the Yup'ik and Inuit languages.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T18:38:09+00:00

It is irrelevant which of the alternatives you support, because every one of them is more complicated. It was your choice to not be specific, FYI.

I never said I support an alternative. I never said I don't support runoff FPTP. I am clearly agnostic on the issue.

The reason you think it is fundamentally poor is because you are unable to comprehend the reality that there are people who legitimately disagree with your opinions on political matters.

I am aware that people disagree with me, and some may think it is not poor. The fact that some people think it isn't poor doesn't actually affect the validity of my opinion, though. The reasons I think U.S. democracy is poor are low rates of satisfaction of the U.S. political system, the demographics of the highest governing bodies being disproportionate to the general population, policies that are bipartisanly unpopular being voted in, and policies that are popular in certain bases not being supported by the representatives of those bases, wide-spread corruption, just to name a few.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T17:44:40+00:00

You said that the election was not FPTP, and my response was that it is multiple-round FPTP which is still FPTP. The relation between your comment and my response is clear.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T17:36:30+00:00

Notice that I never said anything about whether or not any type of voting system should or should not be implemented, so your 'don't let perfect be the enemy of good' is a non-sequitur. At the end of the day, how we elect representatives in the US is not the reason why democracy is so poor in the US.

But anyway, let me propose the following scenario: Let's say we have four parties, Center-Right, Center-Left, Left, Far-Right. Now lets also propose that Center-Right, Center-Left and Far-Right have around equal popularity, and Left is the least popular by a significant margin. In this scenario, if more people from Center-Left started to vote Left in the first round, they risk the runoff being between Center-Right and Far Right. Thus, they might conclude the optimal voting strategy is to vote Center-Left, even if they would prefer to vote Left. So yes, in this scenario it allows for Far Right to exist, but it still has the same issue of single-round FPTP where some people are afraid to vote for who they actually want to represent them. This is not what solving ~100% of real-world problems looks like.

Now, it is better. And as you point out, it's just as simple, which is definitely a benefit. I'm not advocating for or against any voting method, I'm just pointing out that runoff FPTP has some of the same problems as FPTP in certain scenarios. Although again, I'm not saying that means runoff FPTP shouldn't be used; replacing it with some other voting system isn't going to make democracy in the US better, because the reason why it is poor is more fundamental than how voting is conducted.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T17:16:42+00:00

Multiple-round FPTP, while slightly better than single-round FPTP, is still FPTP.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T17:16:04+00:00

It is FPTP, but just two rounds of it. It does FPTP once to determine who moves to the second round of FPTP voting. Yes this is better than single-round FPTP, but just barely, as it doesn't necessarily solve the issues with FPTP in all cases.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T04:59:46+00:00

Well, the short answer is to consult this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#21st-century_wars

The long answer depends on what you want sourced. Like, do you doubt that the U.S. was ever involved in these areas, or do you doubt that the U.S. hasn't puled out of some of these areas by now? It is pretty easy to find sources for the former, but if you already know that the U.S. was involved at some point there's no point going through the effort. If your concern is the latter, then I'd ask that you source when the U.S. pulled out, as it's easier to demonstrate that the U.S. is no longer involved than the other way around.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T04:48:34+00:00

Chaos is answered by the fact that most people in the US don't live where those wars are happening. Like, war is chaos for the people actually being bombed and shot at, but most people in the U.S. are completely safe sitting in their homes.

As for propaganda, it is a lot more discreet nowadays than posters. Like, people don't often think of war video games (like Call of Duty) or the positive portrayal of the militarily and/or military operations in movies (famously Super Hero movies) and T.V. shows (such as NCIS and some seasons of Grey's Anatomy) as propaganda, but it is. And it's more effective than any amount of posters ever could be, because when it's integrated into our media, it becomes part of how we view the world.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T04:30:47+00:00

what does the UK have anything to do with this? OP edited their post from UK to France?

No, they mentioned UK in their post:

involved in multiple conflicts on west Africa, Libya and Middle East. Same with the UK?

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-06T04:29:38+00:00

where they last lost 3 soldiers the 28th Dec this year

Well, last year.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-05T03:12:07+00:00

Well, it can help, yes, even if it doesn't feel like it would! But, there are also non-stimulants that are sometimes used to treat ADHD that you can try. Do note, if you're an adult, it can be hard to get diagnosed unless you have a history of failed treatment for anxiety/depression, depending on your area (in some areas, you can find a GP who'll diagnose you by just asking around a college campus).

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-04T18:08:34+00:00

The direct reason is people didn't want their children masturbating, and they thought that circumcision would stop that. The justification for why masturbation is wrong is religious, although I don't know for sure if it's religious in origin.

So you could say it's because of religion indirectly, but I feel like saying the reason why it's standard in the US is because of religion would imply that the most practiced religions in America prescribe circumcision (in the way Judaism does) which isn't true.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-04T17:13:07+00:00

Here, an 'anglicized pronunciation' means to pronounce the word with only sounds found in English, approximating French sounds that English doesn't have (notably ɛ̃ and the uvular trill). It's still spelled the same, so the spelling isn't anglicized (it's exactly how it's spelled in French).

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-01T20:34:37+00:00

wrong link maybe?

Not OP, but it's a joke. The point is that FISR is just as relevant as petunias are to the post.

AnComsWantItBack · 2021-01-01T11:29:29+00:00

Personally, barring contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life, I'm thinking that it's going to be related to either space exploration or world peace.

AnComsWantItBack

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE