Once upon a time, I would have thought this sort of thing unthinkable around here. This is practically my backyard.

They’re targeting northern states on purpose.

Weird that it would be coming from Americans given how often US media has depicted the importance of the homefront during the various wars that America has participated in.

Militaries still need food and supplies to operate, so someone has to be making/raising/growing all of that stuff. And those workers need to be paid, accommodated, and kept happy, so every other industry like banking, education, healthcare, entertainment, etc. needs to keep running at full steam to prop up all aspects of the supply chain.

There is some degree of distinction, I’d say. Bisexuality is attraction defined by the male/female binary, pansexuality is attraction regardless of gender. A person can be bisexual and attracted to cis men and cis women, but not pansexual if they aren’t attracted to trans or agendered folks.

Granted, a lot of people who say they’re bisexual are probably actually pansexual, but stick with the label that is more widely used and understood out of convenience.

Anyway, the replicants as depicted in all incarnations are clearly biological constructs and not mechanical, so while they’re certainly artificial the notion of whether or not they’re “robots” to begin with is highly debatable.

I would say it’s not even debatable, the issue at the heart of the conflict in the original Blade Runner and continued in 2049 is that the Nexus-7 was made so close to humans that they basically are humans, at least in a biological sense. Maybe the earlier models were more android-like, but later they’re basically just manufactured people.

This is why in 2049 we see >!Deckard, a human, and Rachael, a replicant, were able to conceive a child, who was otherwise born perfectly normal other than not being able to inherit an immune system from her mother.!<

Guessing the Supreme Court ruling last year against Colorado undid all that. Since they ruled that states cannot make decisions that impact federal elections, it wouldn’t surprise me if the fed can now legally demand voter registration records or else refuse to count those votes.

Thanks, Trump.

This is also my guess. Nintendo knows the demand, they’ll do $499.99 for the launch model and release a cheaper “lite” version like the original Switch in 2 years at $350 or $400 or something.

I’m not sure if The Last Shogun is something different, but if you’re referring to the Shogun series recently adapted by FX, I can say having watched it that it features a main character who fancies himself a superior white savior, but ultimately leads to realizing how completely out of his depth he is.

But it’s like the Memoir of a Geisha problem: since the original work was written by a white dude anyways, how much value does it have as a cultural work?

More than just the ones in America, I’d reckon.

Agreed, it’s an interesting thing to think about at least. The nature vs nurture debate is practically as old as time itself but it feels like we’re no closer to an answer outside of “it’s a bit of both.” But how much?

Agreed. A shockingly high percentage of Americans have never even left the state they were born in. Tourism may as well not exist and they would hardly feel a thing.

There was a show in the 80’s-90’s called Quantum Leap, where the aforementioned character keeps waking up in other people’s bodies at different periods of time. The premise is that he needs to solve some sort of problem for them that changes the course of history before he is able to leap to someone else, in the hope that he changes enough to one day “leap home.”

In this photo, Kash Patel looks panicked and confused, which mirrors the character’s behavior when he suddenly finds himself in someone else’s body and has no idea what’s going on.

I’ve said pretty much all I can say on the topic, so I’ll just call it here and award you the internet points of the day. But just need to clarify that pulling in more dictionary definitions to justify a particular use of a term as being more or less correct is the opposite of negating prescriptivism. A survey or other statistic would probably be more applicable on that front.

Apologies if I misunderstood what you were referring to, in that case.

The point I am getting at, though (or failing miserably to, apparently) is that no one here should be confused by the multiple people in the thread who question OP’s use of the term “lynched,” because more than anything else, it “especially” implies an execution by public mob, which did not happen in this case.

Just because a dictionary gets to, well, dictate the various definitions of a word, doesn’t mean that it should be used without consideration for its generally accepted meaning, as dictionaries are often poor authorities.

Thanks, I was about to have a nice day but someone thankfully reminded me I actually suck.

You’re the one doing linguistic prescriptivism here

Only to prove a point, I apologize if the meaning was lost.

The only difference is that what you’re prescribing isn’t what’s in the dictionary, it’s what’s in your own head.

But it is in the dictionary, that’s the point I was getting at. From the same source as the previous poster, note the second definition of both the noun and verb forms:

If that seems like I’m just cherry picking definitions to exclude the common parlance (which, to clarify, is what I am doing), then why likewise exclude the definitions of lynch which do specifically equate it with execution just to make some sort of “umm akshually” point?

But why use “lynched” and not “raped” then? He was successfully raped, as opposed to an “attempted” lynch.

I’m not the one crying about definitions, I just think linguistic prescriptivism is a weird hill to die on. We all know the connotations of these terms.

“This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while” … 1995, for a while, say 2025?

Long enough that he didn’t live to see it happen, unfortunately. Or, for his sake, perhaps mercifully.

I just mean this is like someone using the word “raped” to mean stolen.

I mean, all of the “especially” bits are still significant, and affect the general understanding of the term.

A lot of fiction made up by people is not about war and greed and other causes of suffering. With that in mind, what makes the Bible less fictional than the Dhammapada, or the Lotus Sutra, or Paddington Bear?