That’s kind of the point: there isn’t an authority on English. The closest we come is a bunch of English elites making up informal rules on grammar, spelling, and pronunciation and judging everyone else for not using their version. … And a bunch of try-hards who enforce their arbitrary and often nonsensical 'rules '.
If it parses, it rolls.
I believe that “Indian Giving” is sourced in a cultural misunderstanding between Indigenous and European societies. Indigenous societies were reciprocity based, so giving gifts should be reciprocated with a gift of like value to strengthen relationships, or increase honour (social standing). The Europeans were working in a patron-client system so a gift was seen as a way of purchasing access to power through a patron. The Europeans thought the Indigenous people were paying for access to power (like a tributary), so there’s no expectation of returning a like gift. The indigenous people thought they were entering into a mutual relationship, and when a like gift wasn’t returned that was seen as reneging, so they took back their ‘offer’.
Glad to have an anthropologist kick my ass.
Lots of good articles on Canadian brutality in WW1 if you do a search. As for war crimes in particular, here’s one of many articles mentioning how Canadians killed prisoners of war:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war
Birds are reptiles.
I mean, we’re kind of known for war crimes too. Was anyone in WW1 worse than the Canadians?
I mean, Mademoiselle Cochonne would be her own special kind of lady.
Do you change the emphasis? da-ko-TANT?
Canada’s Brightest Ditch-Digger
Yup, sounds like it. I think this is what the French call “a crime of passion”. The idea is that the moment is so enraging that one cannot be held accountable for one’s actions in that moment. It’s a kind of, “fuck around and find out,” law.
They’re naked seeds. I get you.
So it’s Francophones, not Anglophones misgendering you?
Y’all didn’t hit a paywall? I wanted to read that article.
No. Decanting is pouring, bit specifically not mixing.
Oh man, I think it’s the ‘e’ at the end of your name, which in a bunch of Romance languages would make it feminine. If it’s any consolation, solid men’s English names like ‘Lindsay’ and ‘Ashley’ are almost exclusively women’s names now for the same reason. (The “-y” or “-ie” marks a cutesy diminutive version, i.e. “bird” to “birdy”.)
I don’t think it’s the similarity to “Imane” (unless this is happening in your home culture) because I have never heard of that name before. However, I have seen “Imran” and I would have assumed that “Imrane” was the feminine version because of that ‘e’.
Wasn’t Imran Khan a famous cricketer?
Old English was ‘den’. Place names ending in ‘den’ or ‘don’ were originally farmsteads cleared in the forest, i.e. Wimbledon, or Camden.
Not sure you’ve given us enough context. Why would I feel the need to defend myself when someone asks me directions.
I have a suspicion you’re asking if someone questions my actions or something.
I’ve started to think of “optimum solutions” rather than “right solutions”.
Yeah! I’ve never heard it in BC, Canada. “I’m going upstate BC.” “Prince George?! Fort Saint John!?!”
Doesn’t sound right.
The word “extreme” colours your question a fair bit. I think equality of all genders is good, I don’t think anyone should be subject to unfair treatment based on gender. As a cis-het man I like to be in a relationship with a strong woman.
However, I dated someone for a while that probably fit into the “extreme” category. It was exhausting. I sometimes felt like I couldn’t do anything without it being subjected to the question: “is this the patriarchy?” Like, she needed to hang some closet doors, had no tools, and I was like, “Oh, I can bring my drill over next week and do that!” That offer to help needed to be examined.
It also got annoying that workplace frustrations we both faced were always primarily parsed as “men being sexist” when it happened to her.
IMO often her “fierce conversations” were her being kind of dick about something.
Her model for independence and autonomy strayed very close to a refusal to take anyone else’s needs into account. Her desire to treat everyone like they were equal ignored actual power differentials and the responsibility with which they come. For example, she argued she wouldn’t put the booze away if someone she knew was an alcoholic was coming over because that would be patriarchal and robbing the alcoholic of their agency.
It got exhausting.
Is it? There are plenty of Jews and plenty of Muslims who are not involved in this and see it as wrong. Plus, that’s such a broad statement as to be meaningless. We could equally say government is the problem, but there aren’t many advocating for anarchy. Or people are the problem. I’d be more inclined to say tribalism is the problem, the very foundation of an “us” vs. “them” mentality. Sometimes assholes pick a fight and call it religious. There’s a strong case to be made that war has become much more brutal and far reaching since the Napoleonic wars and the rise of the nation-state. I mean, we can blame religion … that certainly erases the need to look within ourselves and ask why humans do this to each other.
It’s a bit like pretending Nazism was a German problem and pretending like the same dark forces don’t exist now and in many people everywhere.
There are definitely some religious dickheads, but there are dickheads of all stripes.
If religion is so vile, how do we hold in tension the fact that religious people are often behind the most charity towards the marginalised and disempowered? Atheists talk a good game, but rarely leave their armchairs to do anything positive. Religion can become a tribal marker, but it also is one of the main forces working against tribalism.