Back when I lived in N. Carolina, there was a local brand called “Dr. Enuff.” Loved that stuff.

On earth? No, not by a long shot. We would need to get into the deconstructing planets business.

An interesting analyses. It certainly matches what we’ve seen. His attacks on the standard list of people is moderately pathetic, and quite predictable.

He’s never told the truth in his life. How hard would it be to say “no, of course not.”

The government should be obligated to shield them from the causes of climate change. But I suppose that ship had sailed.

Context is as important to language as syntax.

Context is important to the message, yes. But if I need the context to understand a particular word, I would understand the message just as well without that word.

Yea. Not helpful.

I’m aware of the existence of contranyms. None of the examples you gave apply, as they just have different meanings, or the same leaving with different connotations.

Right, that’s “speaking figuratively.” There are rules for that.

But a word that means the opposite of what it means is not a useful word.

I’d hate to find a box in my lab marked “inflammable.”

Trouser Python. Technically true, and no-one is going to check.

Can Trump prove his citizenship, if this policy goes through?

I love me some Stratigo.

Indeed it is so.

Nevertheless, assholes.

If the employers are using computers to read my resume, why shouldn’t I used a computer to write it?

Assholes to the lot of them.

Also, that whole thing is nonsense of the highest order.

the only time I was ever hesitant about a vaccine was the smallpox vaccine that they brought out just as I was enlisting. It was widly reported that it was risky to take, as it contained actual virus, rather than just the recognition bits.

In retrospect, I have no idea if the reporting was accurate, misinformed, or fearmongering. But at the time, it worried me.

Because we don’t want them doing surge pricing.

Is there some reason we want brands to join the conversation?

Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.

I’ll think about it.

using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.

What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?

• “Woman” seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.

• I don’t want to say “natural” women, or “real” women, as even someone as thick as me can see that’s insulting.

• It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.

What do you think world be more appropriate?

it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.

But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.

Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)

I can’t think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I’m never happy with the answer “because this one is right, and that one is wrong.” There needs to be reasons why.