The thread where you post your mildly unpopular opinions

I support using the neutral "they" instead of the generic masculine "he". Not because of politics, but because it just makes sense. It's more accurate, and it's not a crazy change like what's being tried with French/German/etc because English lost gender centuries ago. The generic masculine is the last trace of it. Why not make the transition complete? And having a word for when the gender is unknown/doesn't matter just seems like a rule English would have.
 
I support using the neutral "they" instead of the generic masculine "he". Not because of politics, but because it just makes sense. It's more accurate, and it's not a crazy change like what's being tried with French/German/etc because English lost gender centuries ago. The generic masculine is the last trace of it. Why not make the transition complete? And having a word for when the gender is unknown/doesn't matter just seems like a rule English would have.
Because they is plural. I would rather have them make up a word then to use a plural word to refer to one person.
 
Because they is plural. I would rather have them make up a word then to use a plural word to refer to one person.
I see what you mean, but words change meaning and can have multiple meanings. "The" was originally the nominative masculine before the English realized that case and gender are gay.
 
I think carb and petcock is better than fuel injection, especially for singles. I don’t want to deal with fuel pumps, oxygen sensors, and ecus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synthetic Smug
People who say they prefer the movie over the books are lazy people who can't read.
I can think of a couple exceptions, come to think of it, they're both by Stanley Kubrick. The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. This isn't a slam on the book, which is itself top-notch. Similarly, A Clockwork Orange. The movie even does the book's conceit of a made-up future argot better, because with a visual context and acting, what the language meant was more obvious. In the book, it becomes a nuisance having to look stuff up at the back and breaks the narrative flow. So its most notable literary signature is, in a word, annoying.
 
I can think of a couple exceptions, come to think of it, they're both by Stanley Kubrick. The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. This isn't a slam on the book, which is itself top-notch. Similarly, A Clockwork Orange. The movie even does the book's conceit of a made-up future argot better, because with a visual context and acting, what the language meant was more obvious. In the book, it becomes a nuisance having to look stuff up at the back and breaks the narrative flow. So its most notable literary signature is, in a word, annoying.
To add on to this, Benchly’s Jaws and Puzo’s The Godfather, both far inferior to the films. Both suffer from being victims of great ideas but poor execution, more so in Puzo’s case where the novel focuses too much on dry exposition and moves at a glacial pace. Benchley is just a poor writer.
 
To add on to this, Benchly’s Jaws and Puzo’s The Godfather, both far inferior to the films. Both suffer from being victims of great ideas but poor execution, more so in Puzo’s case where the novel focuses too much on dry exposition and moves at a glacial pace. Benchley is just a poor writer.
Puzo is a great idea guy, a great storyteller, and a crap writer, a combination that often leads to good movie adaptations. Similar case would be The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which is a lousy book, but reading it you can instantly tell why a screenwriter thought, "Okay, this will be a smash hit if I just chop all the really stupid shit out."
 
It’s not the schools responsibility to teach more than puberty and what causes pregnancy in sex Ed.
 
Fluffy hands typed this
Hands?
Paws.jpg
 
Back