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...
He won't sign it because it isn't brutal enough.
ReplyDeletenbcnews.com - Trump says he won't sign GOP immigration bill that would stop separating families at border
He won't sign it because 5 minutes ago it sounded good inside his head where he sees himself as "tough". Five minutes from now, he will sign it because now signing it is "tough". Give him another five minutes and he'll find someone else to blame for both positions. Or Stephen Miller, or Corey Lewandowski, or Fox News, or someone else will whisper in his ear and he'll parrot that. He's an empty shell. A very dangerous empty shell. Inhabited by a tantrum-ing toddler.
ReplyDelete