Depends on what lesson you think they’re trying to teach. “When you know the right thing to do, don’t let people use rules and obstructions to stop you from doing it.” can be a good lesson.

The “pedophile” thing has always been a front for conservatives to wedge in, from what I’ve seen. They saw a real problem and then, as they always do, fearmongered and inflated it way out of proportion to reality, then started to expand the definition.

I’m old enough to remember when pedophile actually meant people trying to engage in sex with children. As in, actual children. The definition began expanding to older and older people, and expanding into fiction, fictional characters, and more.

They also started getting weird about any men being near children. I am also old enough to remember when fathers, uncles, and generally men, could be in public with kids without a woman around and without being looked at with suspicion. These days we hear countless stories of men stalked, harassed, and threatened when they’re out with kids they have every right to be with.

And that’s just the stuff that affects everyone, not just minorities and marginalized people. How the left ever got on board with this pedophile panic I don’t understand, considering conservatives have been equating LGBT with molestation and pedophilia as long as I can recall. Anyone who didn’t see this coming from the beginning is a blind fool.

I think it was the Catholic Church thing. A real case of pedophilia committed by figures generally considered conservative and right wing, which the left rightfully jumped on attacking…but then kept going when conservatives egged them on further instead of stopping. People got tricked into going nuts on it cause the right was all ‘well if that’s bad then you must condemn this…and this…and this…and this…’ with each step being something less and less real, less egregious, less of a true problem. But they’re good at stoking hate, and once the hate was kindled in people it took less and less to spread it just slightly further each time, until now we have people ostensibly on the left calling for censorship of completely fictional works and punishment of people who produce or consume them, despite no actual harm to any actual people being involved.

And that’s exactly the level of unthinking hate they want, for people to not stop and consider whether any actual harm is being caused, just condemn and punish and don’t argue or dispute the severity of what you’re calling for. Just hate, just view them as monsters, deserving of death. Even as the definition keeps expanding.

After all, what group is othered and made the enemy doesn’t matter that much to them, only that some group is hated to the point of an unexamined desire for violence and death. They can work with that, after all.

Yeah, Trump is a stupid target and this is bad timing. Now if someone had gone after the Supreme Court a year or three ago, that would’ve been a good thing. Even now it might still be. But Trump? Terrible choice of targets. He’s…his relevance has already happened. It’s too late for his death to be positive in any significant way.

Hell, I suspect that it might boost the Republican candidate, whoever is selected to replace him, unless they wind up having a really nasty fight where various supporters get extremely entrenched against each other. But that’s not likely - Republicans are very tribalist, once they select a candidate, most of them are going to support him, regardless of how badly they were speaking of him five minutes ago when they were in full support of his opponent.

I’d go the other way, adhering very strictly to the letter of the law without the tiniest bit of wiggle room or interpretation of anything as nebulous as the ‘spirit’ of the law.

Trouble being that natural languages that people use to converse are ill suited for that level of precision and detail. I’ve thought that perhaps a constructed language, something between a language and programming code may be a better way to write laws.

Prosecutorial discretion is a big problem really. It’s what allows laws to be applied unequally, why black people are prosecuted way more than white people, and, as you mention, provides justification to jail anyone at any time because you ARE violating some law every day, almost certainly.

If prosecutorial discretion did not exist, if agents of the law were required to prosecute all crimes to the fullest extent of the law, it would require the entire legal system to be restructured in a more precise way, and would have far less room for racial, sexual, and class discrimination as well as far less capacity to be weaponized against enemies of those in power.

The big question is how many times to press it. Once at least is a given. It does specify the death as gruesome, so I don’t really want the death, but I’d also like enough money to not have to worry again until a non gruesome death.

Like, if it was painless death, I’d probably say something like 20 or 30 times, but with a gruesome one…maybe 5 max, or perhaps even less. Still, one or two pushes is a given.

Yeah, to Duke, I think a hot chick is a hot chick no matter what.

Hah, meanwhile I think partner sounds bad, because it will never stop making me think of a law firm.

Depending on where you live and when you began behaving like this and calling her your wife, you may in fact be married.

Well, framing it as ‘this is the currently accepted way of doing it, and according to current norms your use is wrong’ seems correct enough to me; someone can certainly be speaking incorrectly according to a certain set of norms.

It also increases the ‘friction’ somewhat, causing those who want to change things to actively push against current norms rather than argue from their own position of faux superiority, citing the changing nature of language to insist no use can ever be wrong.

And in any case it is also likely to slow down the change, which I at least think is a nearly entirely good thing. I want to still be able to read things from a couple hundred years ago, and I would similarly like those who come after me to understand the things I write without translations or aid, at least for a couple hundred years.

It’s not necessarily worse, I suppose. I think it is worse in this example, perhaps you don’t, and I think we can acknowledge this as a reasonable difference of opinion.

I primarily object to the seemingly common attitude acting as though it is unreasonable to consider a change in language usage bad and be opposed to it at all. The attitude that anyone objecting to a language change has the same sort of ignorance as those who don’t want the language to ever change from whatever idealized version they have. These people are ridiculous, but not everyone who opposed any particular language change is one of them.

If you are not going to read something, perhaps you should avoid making ignorant comments, considering that for the most part, those topics are already addressed in my posts.

It’s worse in that there is now no common way to say what it used to mean, without adding several more words, where previously one would have communicated the meaning clearly.

Anytime a language change increases the likelihood of misunderstanding it definitely has negative effects. It may also have positive effects, but it shouldn’t be simply accepted without regard to that.

Now, disagreement on whether a particular change’s negative outweighs its positive is going to happen, obviously, but it’s important to acknowledge the bad parts exist.

It’s also important not to accept a mistake and insist that it’s fine because language changes, out of pride and desire to not be mistaken - a trend I definitely see a lot. It’s often not ‘I am using this word in a different way and have considered it’s implications’, it’s ‘I don’t want to be wrong so I will insist that I didn’t make a mistake, language changes!’

While language does evolve over time, we shouldn’t encourage unnecessary and somewhat negative evolutions of it, and especially not encourage it to change over less time.

When two previously distinct words come to have the same meaning, this can be a problem. First, older written things become less comprehensible. Few of us today could read and understand old english because so many words have changed. The evolution of language has taken a long time to get to that point, at least. But if we encourage the acceleration of this change, something which appears to be happening even without encouragement, how long will it be?

Today, we can still pretty clearly understand things written 200 years ago; some bits are confusing but for the most part it is still clear. If language change accelerates enough, in the future, people may struggle to understand something written only a hundred years ago, or even less.

The second problem is that if the word for a thing goes away, it becomes more difficult to express that concept. Consider the word ‘literally’ whose meaning has become extremely muddled. In order to express the original concept, we now require additional emphasis. There are other, more difficult to think of terms like that - a concept for which a particular word would have been perfect had the word’s meaning not significantly changed.

So when a word’s usage is corrected, do not be so quick to defend the misuse of the word through ‘language evolves!’ If people accept that ‘oops, I used that word wrong’ and then see if there is already a better word for what they were trying to express to correct themselves with, that is probably better - in most cases.

Even more notably, new words should be used when possible, if an older word doesn’t quite fit a newly emerging thing, or even a concept that has existed for some time but has not had a word to describe it precisely. One of my favorite examples of this is the word ‘cromulent’ which expresses a concept that did not have a specific word for it in common use at the time, even though the concept of ‘understandable and linguistically correct’ certainly already existed. Also consider the now common word ‘emoji’ which was coined specifically to represent this concept. This is an excellent evolution of language because it took nothing away. It arose in response to something which did not exist, and described that thing with a word created specifically for it.

That said, fighting against the evolution of language that has already happened and is far too entrenched to ever change is nonsensical. My father, for instance, insists ‘cool’ should be for temperature description only, even though that word possessed its non-temperature meaning before he was even born. Similarly, sometimes the change is resisted for bad reasons; like the word ‘gay’. In these cases, it is best not to try to fight the change, but instead embrace and encourage it.

So ultimately, when a word is used wrong, consider whether the word evolving to the way it is being used is a positive change. If it does not make things better, it’s probably best not to encourage it.