Technically, “the Holy Spirit” isn’t a proper noun. That’s because it contains an adjective also. Personally, I wouldn’t capitalize any of those terms. The head of the Catholic church only really when talking about it as a title in front of the assumed name, Pope Leo. Somebody’s style guide may have them capitalize all nouns with religious notoriety. That’s a style choice then rather than grammatical necessity.

Also, grammar is the attempt at formulating rules about how people talk. Meaning the talking came first and then somebody tried to codify it. That means there is virtually no grammar rule that doesn’t come with at least one exception. Learning when to use an article or not, when it should be the indefinite or the definite one, is killing students who come from languages that don’t use articles at all. And in some cases also those who speak other article-infested languages. That’s because it doesn’t make any sense and you had to grow up being corrected by other speakers to get this mostly right. It is convention more than clean cut rules.

If you don’t live there, legally or not, you don’t have to do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census

Why are you the authority to change how people talk? At the risk of sounding harsh: no one cares what you think.

This is a repeat of https://lemmy.world/post/50601285

I’m not debating you on fashion choices. I’m pointing out that you yourself use class to describe folks. You can’t fight against the class system when you write of “working class” yourself. And in a way that answers your question: it is ingrained in people.

(the typical getup of a white, working-class British lad)

You perpetuate it yourself.

Call me cynical but I do think an outlet called oil price dot com may not be entirely impartial when they report on this. That is not to say what they wrote here is wrong; I wouldn’t know. It just has a touch of pot and kettle about it.

Since the power networks are linked and European countries import and export electricity, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that next to renewables power from gas stepped in to fill the nuclear gap. And the price for natural gas is often linked to a certain other commodity price.

The origin of left and right come from the French revolution. In the first assembly, the pro-monarchists were sitting on the right and the “let’s try something different” folks sat on the left. So strictly speaking, the US political spectrum was entirely on the left (until a narcissist was elected and wouldn’t mind being crowned king).

What’s in a label? The problem is the lack of debate. This team think that makes every idea from the other side stupid by default. A parliamentary system will fail when people stop talking to each other.

And socialism is really only a red rag with a yellow hammer and a sickle in the US. It’s your cold war hangover. Socialists or social democrats exist in most democracies.

Per your definition, the effects of loyalty are always per se negative. I don’t doubt that in many situations this is true. I don’t think it’s always true. And a lot of it has to do with how we socialize. We need strong bonds. On a purely rational level, I’d be inclined to agree with you. We aren’t very rational though.

If my hypothetical friend, out of the blue, got drunk, got behind the wheel, and ran somebody over, many people might turn away. If I stayed by their side, helped them arrange themselves in this new life of guilt, helped them make restitutions, and kept them from sliding into isolation and depression, my loyalty could be seen as a force for good in a bad situation. I could still donate to cover the victim’s medical costs or funeral. There are bonds that keep us together even when we effed up.

Now, if I had willfully ignored all signs of alcohol abuse before, I think I’d be back on your page. So what I’m saying is we can create scenarios of loyalty with good outcomes. So the categorical dismissal as something negative isn’t true.

How would you feel about the fact that they made the Jim Carrey movie and put it where you could see it?

I don’t think the Morisetteian irony of watching a movie that’s equally fucked up in its premise as you found out your life is would move the needle much. The rug would’ve been pulled out from under you and this wouldn’t cause more than a wry bored smile a couple of weeks later when the shock has subsided a bit.

How is this mildly infuriating? If this Weekend at Bernie’s vibe turns out to be true, that wouldn’t be mildly infuriating. If it’s the story of an evil politician clinging to life like dog shit to your sneakers, it also isn’t just mildly infuriating. And if it is the story of an old man surely not long for this world, this isn’t infuriating at all.

It’s a stressful situation, a funeral. It seems insurmountable before it happens and once it gets going it becomes mostly manageable. I get why you don’t want the stress and all the family dynamics and the religious top layer.

That being said: yes, you are unreasonable. If you like going to funerals, there is something wrong with you. Nobody likes it. For much the same reasons as yours. That’s the baseline.

Think of it as a game and try to avoid talking to all the family members you don’t like. And since it will be your father’s funeral, you have the perfect excuse to have a thousand mile stare and be monosyllabic. And then you treat yourself when it’s over.

There is no need to make your father sad now. Tell him you’ll attend. Because it matters to him. Even if you have no intention to show up, which you should though. He’ll either come back to haunt you from the afterlife (slim chance) or the only people who will maintain a grudge are your living relatives. That’s the bed you’ll be making for yourself and you can avoid a whole lot of additional shit in the future by investing half a day and attend the goddamn funeral.

Sad.

Could it be the books are wrapped to protect against humidity? This may not be the whole reason why they do it but it wouldn’t be the worst one.

blowing the butt trumpet has been an embarrassing thing for millennia

This is not correct. There is a Martin Luther qoute (around 1500) that goes something like “why don’t you burp or fart? Wasn’t the meal to your liking?” The Romans made the latrine a social gathering. The need for butt trumpet privacy is fairly recent.

“We are not so different, you and I,” soliloquies the villain.

Super cut from YouTube

I get she was frustrated. I get this was a joke. You don’t make bomb jokes in line at the TSA either.

She may have overestimated the degree of privacy her DMs had. That’s also on her. Other e2e encrypted services are available to make the crass jokes. But if one of the three recipients had also failed to get the joke, a Signal chat would’ve sufficed to get those deputies showing up as well.

And one shouldn’t expect that a company, even of dwindling importance as Snapchat, won’t do everything in their power to cover their asses. Imagine if this teacher did go amok and they flagged it but did nothing.

I kind of expect this sort of hidden ad shenanigans these days. Which I shouldn’t, of course. But as a result I find it more infuriating to have a link to the “article” next to the already opened very same “article.” Come on, algorithm! That’s just unforgivable.

Yes, I did hear that before.

Eff me, that wasn’t intended!