Funny, given how much people hated ENT at the time. It was a good show, but the CGI has aged poorly.

Seems like if he got the position he would just sit dumbfounded and make shit up as he goes.

So same as him being president?

Wait what do you mean the stupid poopy head became president?

The answer is that about 25 to 30 percent of the population just want to see the world burn, and Trump satisfied that urge.

That doesn’t make known fraudster and rapist Trump a smart man.

It just makes him a successful demagogue.

Well, who wants to work for a known rapist and fraudster?

People who don’t give a fuck about the law, that’s who.

“I’m sorry that I didn’t know there was video evidence.”

He’s running low on money to stage his own rallies.

Now he’s forced to show up to all of these events that are not staged by his own campaign and where he can’t control who gets in.

He’s trying to choose places and events where there’s still a very large likelihood that thousands of people will cheer for him instead of boo him, but he can no longer threaten to throw people out or have them beaten up if they don’t like him.

Must be hard for him.

Feels a bit ridiculous.

Even low-balling Trump’s supposed wealth, that’s like setting bond for the average person at $7.50.

Just such an insane photo in general.

The all white crowd? The absolutely insane looking lady, holding the scared looking baby? The “Thank You, Lord JESUS, FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP” sign?

Doesn’t work with Android 13 and up, correct?

I would also like to learn about this law that apparently prevents Google Maps from showing speed limits in my country, but allows Waze to do so.

Nothing Clinton said about coal was “stupid shit.”

She just told people the truth, and people prefer to be lied to over hearing uncomfortable truths.

Same happened to Al Gore: he told people the truth, and people went absolutely bonkers over that.

By contrast, Trump told people exactly what they wanted to hear, even though it was clear to anyone that he was lying to them or promising them things that he could never, ever fulfill - and people loved it.

That article is from 1992 and shows the history of the progression of the cohort names.

Yes, it is, and it describes how the Black community has moved through various iterations of preferred terminology.

What it doesn’t support is the claims you’ve made: that these terms were invented by “progressives” (rather than by the community itself), that “progressives” came up with those new terms in order to feel superior, that “progressives” came up with those new terms in order to shame those who don’t follow their changes.

You’ve also implied that you don’t have a problem referring to a community using the terminology they themselves decide to use in order to refer to themselves.

So on the one hand it would appear that you perceive changing etymology as an attack by progressive on you, on the other hand you claim you’re okay with a community deciding for itself what terminology to use (and presumably also to change that terminology).

Those two things seem contradictory.

Alright.

I’ve gone to the trouble to download that article. Just for reference, here’s the abstract:

Labels plays an important role in defining groups and individuals who belong to the groups. This has been especially true for racial and ethnic groups in general and for Blacks in particular. Over the past century the standard term for Blacks has shifted from “Colored” to “Negro” to “Black” and now perhaps to “African American.” The changes can be seen as attempts by Blacks to redefine themselves and to gain respect and standing in a society that has held them to be subordinate and inferior.

and I see nothing in the article itself that would say otherwise.

In other words: this is talking about the Black community deciding for itself what they wish to use as preferred terminology to refer to themselves.

There’s nothing in there about “progressives.” There’s nothing in there about progressives “feeling superior to others.” There’s nothing in there about progressives “shaming those who don’t follow their changes.”

What if progressives are just more accepting of the notion that groups of people should be able to decide what they like to be called?

Then what makes you believe that it’s “progressives” that are responsible for changing the “name of the cohort every few years?”

Does that mean you’re opposed to calling people how they state they prefer to be called because you perceive it as a progressive ploy and you don’t like progressives?

Well, it implies “whiteness” as the norm - i.e. that it’s not even necessary to mention that somebody is “white” (as in “a man was seen at the station”) because the default assumption is that a certain ethnicity that a society was built for is the “norm,” and it’s only worth mentioning race as a qualifier (as in “a colored man was seen at the station”) when referring to a member of the outside group.

However, I’d still argue that this, too, is a sociological rather than a linguistical concept.

So if you already thought that the accepted phrase today was “People of Color,” then what was the purpose of asking that question?

Linguistically? Sure.

Historically? Well, “colored people” is the term used in Apartheid South Africa and in Jim Crow America by racists and white supremacists and people longing for the slavery era in order to refer to people that were regarded and treated as inferior, while “People of Color” is the term that a large majority seems to prefer as the term to refer to themselves.

As we’ve seen over the past decade (well, past few decades, tbh), changing the word only moves the objectionable meaning onto the new word.

It’s been going on for much longer. Just look up all the clinical terms that came into use in the Victorian era. There’s been an ongoing effort to come up with better terminology. Words came into existence in an effort to have neutral terminology to refer to certain symptoms or conditions or to categorize people or chronic illnesses or ethnicities etc.

It’s just that we no longer use terms like “moron” or “lunatic” or “removed” or “fool” or “insane” or “Mongol” as neutral, objective, clinical terminology.

I think many people get used (and attached) to the terminology that they learned when growing up, unaware that this terminology has been changing at a rapid pace for centuries now, and then get all bent out of shape when they’re being told that the words they were taught as kids are no longer the preferred way of referring to certain conditions/ethnicities/demographic groups etc.

And of course, then there are people who use those expressions with the full intention to insult and malign, only to feign ignorance when called out: “But that’s the word people have always been using! Why are you getting so upset?”