Is it because he's from limbo?

Europe is developing local alternative models such as Mistral

"Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity"

"viewpoint diversity" isn't a guarantee of merit-based hiring policies

It's actually quite believable when you define a combatant as males aged 13+

There's no shortage of governments where the professed ideology fails to line up with its actual policies, just look at the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

Taxes are a form of wealth redistribution, and all governments require a revenue stream

That a government levies taxes to sustain its operations, such as the monopoly of violence, does not mean that "it exists to redistribute wealth".

The wording was very intentional and very wrong. Specially because it's uses as an argument.

Singular they was used by respected authors even as far back as the 19th century.

indoordin0saur is correct. Traditional use of singular "they" was restricted to persons of unknown sex, where it is correct and unobjectionable. But the article uses it for persons of known sex. This is a modern innovation, and it should be resisted because it reduces the clarity of the writing.

They were people of unknown sex. Keeping the gender unspecified is part of the anonymity.

Requiring to identify someone's gender when that person is anonymous is just pointless bigotry.

You're already making up fictitious names, so how is making up fictitious sexes any different? By using non-unisex names you're implying specific sexes already. It's implausible that you would know somebody's name and details about their working conditions without knowing their sex.

Alternative solution: abbreviate all the fictitious names to single letters. This is commonly understood to mean obviously and intentionally concealed identity (e.g. "M" and "Q" from the James Bond franchise), which returns the singular "they" to traditional and unobjectionable usage.

You can try to fight against it, but language is constantly evolving. Calling someone "nimrod" originally meant they were a great hunter and not the modern meaning of fool

If it were not for those who assiduously compile dictionaries and other sources, and those who correct, you would not be able to understand the English from fifty years ago.

Language evolution needs serious gatekeeping.

It would ideally be best left to those who know what they are doing, not those who can't be bothered to look up a word.

Nimrod as a pejorative probably arose among students who knew the name from history, and just started using it for fun. Kids in my eighth grade class, when we studied The Hobbit, started using "Bilbo" as a pejorative (referencing the character name Bilbo Baggins).

This is a very interesting take to me. So you think language should be policed by a self selected cabal of experts? While i might agree for something like specific scientific findings being held tight by a small group of experts, i think language at large is a much, much larger thing. Mainly because literally everyone (okay 99%) use it pretty much all day every day. Very very few of the antivaxers are studying and using epidemiology and virology all day every day, but everyone talks.

As such, language evolves local dialects and accents just due to the fact that there's far too many people to corral into one way of speaking. How do you feel about regional accents?

Finally, i am very thankful for the experts who make dictionaries and find the origins of words i find interesting. However i _strongly_ doubt it would be impossible to understand the English my father spoke when he was a little under my age. Chiefly because, he's literally still alive and speaking? It sounds insane to assert that 50 years is enough to change language enough to become unintelligible unless i had a "1975 dictionary" in which i could look up all the slang and terminology. Sure, kids talk funny, jeepers man, it's like totally rad sometimes though. Far out dude. Did you have to look up what far out meant when you first heard it? Or did you understand it from the context and tone with which it was said.

Good luck telling me I'm not intelligent enough to decide what I say bud, even better luck telling that to the kids. Get with it or be history my guy.

The thing is, "jeepers", "ain't got nothin'" or "far out" are correct in ways that wrong usage of "begging the question" aren't. They're not based on a misunderstanding or anything. Jeepers is a way of avoiding saying Jesus, far out is just a shortening of something like far out of the ordinary, rad is an abbreviation of radical. None of these are criticized as words or phrases being used incorrectly.

In the English speaking culture it's not uncommon for "begging the question" to be called out when it should be "raising the question". Until those voices completely stop it's questionable usage. It carries a blemish, unlike usage that is free of criticism.

That's a descriptive stance. If I stand outside the English speaking culture and observe it, I see that certain malapropisms and whatnot are criticized by a good many of its members. They are native speakers and their opinions are data points that cannot be disregarded.

> The U.S. can't "reward" local manufacturing (through subsidies, etc.) enough to offset the absolutely massive subsidies that China gives out like candy.

The U.S. has the biggest economy in the world. If they prioritized local manufacturing as much as China does couldn't they compete?

They could do that, but Tiktok's most valuable asset is their recommendation algorithm