vegetaTrump administration says states must "immediately undo any steps" to send full SNAP benefits
unrealizedrealitiesUncle Larry loves you!
AlmaccaYou MUST Stop FEEDING STARVING AMERICAN CHILDREN!
-Republicans LITERALLY!
It’s even worse than that. It’s quite literally taking food BACK out of their mouths.
quite literally
🤔
You gotta realize even the dictionary has given up on this one…
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
Because the dictionary covers the practical usage, and the misuse is as common as the actual use. The dictionary definition for litterally includes the formal “in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression” and the informal that means the exact opposite “statement or description that is not literally true or possible”
I find it kind of ironic to say it’s actual definition for literally includes effectively or it could also mean “not literally”
Merriam Webster hasn’t been the academic standard for decades. The Oxford one did not capitulate to trends.
Hard to judge from your link, as apparently they paywalled it.
www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/…/literally
but I’m assuming it’s not too different than this. Which also includes
(informal) used to emphasize a word or phrase, even if it is not literally true I literally jumped out of my skin.
literally adverb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
Definition of literally adverb in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.
NeilBrü“quite literally” would mean there are federal officers or agents in people’s homes scraping chewed food out of children’s mouths.
I think you mean "virtually taking food BACK oout of their mouths.
Anyone who tries to start that “literally also means figuratively” shit here is going to get shivved. By me.
Literally or figuratively?
Miles O'BrienBut, like, it does. Because language evolves, and history shows most who choose the Old Ways of Language as the hill to die on don’t win out.
So many of the word shifts that have conglomerated into new dialects, and eventually new languages, come from people who don’t feel like saying a whole word anymore, who combine 2+ words together, who lose the need for a word’s specific meaning and let it become something more general, etc.
NO. IT DOES NOT. WORDS DO NOT EVOLVE TO MEAN THEIR OPPOSITE ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE SPECIFIC TO WORDS THEMSELVES. INSANE CHAOS SUPPORTERS GTFO.
SIX IS NOT GOING TO MEAN NINE, EVER. (well okay maybe once for fun, or like in a substitution cipher or something.) “RUN” SHOULD NEVER MEAN “STAND STILL”. STEP AWAY FROM THE BONG.
Quora user Ben Waggoner had this to say about words evolving to mean their opposites:
Well, the classic example is “awful”, which used to mean, literally, “awe-full”, i.e. full of awe, awe-inspiring. It now generally means “really bad.”
In my long-passed Methodist childhood, the hymnal included a hymn that we never seemed to sing, called “Before Jehovah’s Awful Throne”. I remember wondering as a lad why God would put up with a bad throne. . .
There’s an often-repeated story that when Christopher Wren completed building St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, King Charles II exclaimed that the building was “awful”, “artificial”, and “amusing.” Supposedly, this was actually meant as a compliment: “awful” meant awe-inspiring, “artificial” meant made with great art and skill, and “amusing” meant amazing. Hey, what do you know—words can change their meanings!
The truth is not quite that good a story. There is a documented royal warrant from Charles II that praises the plan of St. Paul’s as “very artificial, proper, and useful; as because it was so ordered that it might be built and finish’d by Parts”—so it’s true that St. Paul’s was called “artificial” in the sense of “designed with great art”, which I guess is another example of a word that has taken a very different meaning, if perhaps not the exact opposite of its original meaning. But the bits about “awful” and “amusing” seem to have accreted to the story much later. (And “amusing” originally meant “deceiving; deluding”; I don’t think it meant “amazing” at all, although I’ll check that.) Check out St Paul’s Cathedral Is Amusing, Awful, and Artificial for documentation.
Responding to the same question, Quora user Jennifer Bransfield offered:
What are examples of words which, archaichly, had the exact opposite meaning?
You can thank our West Coast surfers for some of these switcheroos:
Sick - used to mean ill, bad or unhealthy. Now it means something very good.
Dude - used to mean a man who works on a ranch. Now it is used as a gender-nonspecific pronoun. Yes, even women can be dudes.
Awesome - used to mean extremely worthy of awe. Now it can be used for ordinary things. It can also be used sarcastically to describe something that is not good. For example, “I think this toast is awesome because it has just the right amount of butter.” Or, “Awesome. I just lost my job.”
Tubular - used to mean shaped like a tube.
What an awful* response.
*Assume whichever meaning you prefer to.
Now you’ve got it!
Right, I know; you meant it literally!
Then there are the words that you could think were antonyms but actually have the same meaning, like flammable/inflammable and ravel/unravel.
r4venwRepublicans when handing out business loans like candy during COVID:
It’s just too difficult to get all that money back. Just forgive all the loans.
Republicans when children are fed with government benefits
GET THAT FUCKING MONEY BACK RIGHT NOW
A better source.
politico.com/…/trump-administration-tells-states-…
USDA’s latest memo, sent Saturday to state directors of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, instructed states to deliver just 65 percent of benefits during the government shutdown and required those who already sent full payments to claw back that money.
There really is no bottom to this administrations evil.
peoplebeproblemsIt confirms my theory that they are desperately trying to implement the mass killing of people.
The political violence they wanted isn’t happening. The dropping vaccine rates isn’t fast enough. And now people aren’t starving as they should be.
That indicates to me that they are finding out just how hard it is to kill 268,000,000 people. It might have something to do with the fact that 268,000,000 are more than enough to keep themselves alive.
It’s a plausible theory. They want to create a system that inevitably leads to revolution, so they need to weaken those that might revolt as much as possible. They are also stubbornly sticking to the old rightist tactic of inflicting pain and suffering while trying to blame that pain and suffering on their opponents. That tactic is starting to fail, which means they have to fall back to weakening those who will rise up. They are openly admitting that they know their criminal coup has been noticed and won’t be forgotten.
It’s not even just that. I can’t find a source right now, but I remember reading about how the “dark enlightenment” lunatics have worked out their “ideal” US population for their technofeudalist dystopia, and it’s vastly lower than what the population is currently. I believe that’s what the commenter was referencing with the “kill 268,000,000” figure: 343 mil - 268 mil = 75 mil, which I think might’ve been what the thing I read said.
That sounds like a great way to end up being in Russia’s shoes. The feudalist part of that technofedualist dystopia is undoubtedly going to have imperialistic ambitions, and—somehow—I don’t think Musk’s Optimus robots are going to be able to compensate for the fact that they’ll have less than half of the combined population of Mexico and Canada.
I have theory that the Republican party (note, not voters) is made of three very different factions:
- Christians hoping to bring about Armageddon and the end of times so they can get to heaven. How they hope to get to heaven by supporting Trump is beyond me. In the mean time, they’ll settle for Christian theocratic dictatorship.
- Atheist tech-bros that can see the environment is going to shit. Their plan is to remove as many people as possible to reduce the impact of humans on the environment, replacing them with AI and robots as needed.
- Old, oil connected and/or corrupt politicians that just don’t give a fuck so long as they get a fat pay cheque. They are too rich and old to ever feel the consequences of this administration.
While they wildly different motivations, they seem to agree on letting people die serves their goals.
ScubusOk but that middle one sounds way different from the other two. Js, the 1% are responsible for 99% of our pollution.
Yeah, but if enough of us die…? To be clear, these tech-bros are truly evil, they will do whatever it takes to secure their wealth and lifestyle.
Yeah, thats kinda what im getting at. Currently, behind fossil fuels, the most polluting/environmentally unfriendly industry im aware of is ai development.
Full controversial disclosure: ive been studying actual AI since the early 00s. I know what the tech is capable of and im very well versed in it. Llms are a nichely useful tool, but thats it. That is not even close to the max potential for AI. Most of the things the tech bros promise are theoretically possible, but theyre so wildly misleading about it as to basically say that they are just lying. The current AI bubble WILL pop before we see too much cooler stuff, but I am confident that the tech will still be looked into, just at a regular scale instead of being massively blown out of proportion. Eventually it will be like it used to be, with small incremental inprovements in multiple different fields and the occasional breakthrough where someone combines the fields. And this should all be happening without consumers being aware of it, basically. Not that is shiuld be hidden, but they shouldnt be writing news articles about it because real progress is slow.
If you want to actually keep up with the real progress in actual AI instead of tech bro crap or llm crap, follow Two Minute Papers on youtube. Hes far from the only source ive looked into over the years, but he has some distinct advantages over most other ai sources. He does all the paper scouring for you so you can stay up to date on the latest ai progression(again, NOT LLMS, THIS TECH HAS 0 TO DO WITH LLMS. THEY DO NOT SHARE THE SAME ARCHITECTURE, THEY DO NOT RUN ON THE SAME HARDWARE. IT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.) and he breaks it down succinctly, simply, and without overselling it or any of the other propaganda. He reviews papers that are currently released and checks out the AI behind it. He also handles algorithms which are super cool!
It’s actually, in order of demographic size, biggest to least:
- Politicians that just don’t give a fuck so long as they keep a fat pay cheque.
- Tech-bros that want to replace people with AI so as to get keep fat pay cheque…
- Christians/religious whose hate, xenophobia, and intolerance is more important than anything else
TotThe only saving grace is that most of the people who I know that are on SNAP fucking love Trump and will probably keep loving him even after this. Maybe it’s where I live but it’s getting harder and harder to feel bad for these people getting hurt by Trump’s policies because most of them still fucking love him.
Scrambled Eggs so what is the purpose of this? Besides the obvious “evilness”. Is it to better control the masses? Or retaliation for protesting? For force people to get a second or third job to say he is creating jobs? What is the logic behind this?
Ooo hadn’t thought of the job creation angle. Though I assume those are part time jobs. Do they count those when computing employment numbers?
Cruxifux
CharlesDarwinDo they even plan on releasing those any more?
Hungry people can’t think. Hungry people can’t fight. Hungry people eventually stop being a barrier to power.
Same with the sick.
They really don’t have an end goal beyond that. They want to take what they please, and enjoy killing some people in the process.
Would be a shame if the starving masses and the farmers with produce rotting in their fields got together and realised that this administration is the cause of all their problems…
Would be nice, sure. Unfortunately, the Republican propaganda machine has spent the last 3-decades brainwashing those farmers into believing that cities are Detroit-in-Robocop-level crime scenes that are beyond repair, and anyone with pink hair is gonna turn them gay, to believe anything but what the propaganda machine says is the root cause of their problems.
That’s a good point, but humans are basically stupid animals.
You can predict them to do something unpredictable
They are holding the most vulnerable Americans hostage in the hopes that it will convince the democrats to allow them to be hurt in a different way, by agreeing to the proposed budget.
But most importantly, they are also trying to extend the duration of the shutdown, while making it seem like they aren’t the ones doing it. So the deal they are offering has to stay something that the democrats would never agree to…
So they also benefit from anything other than that being what is in the news, but they have lots of practice making sure the news is talking about stupid stuff instead of important stuff.
As long as the government is shut down, the vote to release the Epstein documents can’t happen. Currently if it happened, it would pass. That will be devastating not to just trump, but a large percentage of rich republicans, in and out of government. (As well as a small percentage of rich democrats) so they are just waiting until the situation changes enough that they think a vote would go their way.
And while that does seem both comically evil and too simple to possibly be what it is all about… or wait… does it still seem too evil and simple to be the real plan?
One of the best TL;DR’s on our current situation that I have seen.
NateNate60Ah yes, the Trump starvation agenda.
Bread and Games: it’s how one keeps the populous under control. Everyone knows that, right?