TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful. Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions. Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind o...
Plussing not because I like the sentiment but because I share the despair.
ReplyDeleteSince when has Trump been about the rule of law? He seems more about rule of the deal (and that the deal is rigged in his favour).
ReplyDeleteKarl-Johan Norén since it started to look like he might get to make the laws.
ReplyDeleteHis entire speech was "law & order", which he said multiple times. Along with dogwhistles and blatant statements about keeping us safe from the apparently violent chaos that threatens to consume us. And HE ALONE (the actual quote is "I alone") can save us.
ReplyDeleteThen there was the pandering about finding a Scalia replacement that would make Scalia look soft and cuddly. So we could, you know, make the right kinds of laws.
There was also the blatant hypocritical pandering about getting rid of laws that keep various religious orders from straight up being directly involved in government.
Iow, he will make and break laws at his, and presumably the Republican party's, whim. You know, like autocrats, dictators, and tyrants do.