Where do we even start with this? – politicalbetting.com

Have we done this?

Another reason why cash will become even more obsolete.

Decline of cash credited for drop in NHS surgery for children swallowing objects

Figures reveal 29% fall in operations in England to remove foreign bodies from children’s airways, noses and throats

The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE), which obtained the figures, collated from hospital admission data, identified the rise of the cashless society as the main reason.

“Historically, coins accounted for over 75% of objects swallowed by children under six years old, and fewer coins in homes due to contactless payments have likely helped reduce the number of these procedures,” it said.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/28/decline-of-cash-credited-for-drop-in-nhs-surgery-for-children-swallowing-objects

Not so much where do we start?
But where will it end?

Good morning everyone.

My FPT Is on topic !

Scott_xP said:

MattW said:

the Tonka Tankers cost an extra 10-15%

Trumpski has already told automakers not to raise prices...

He can tell them all he likes; I doubt it's sustainable. Reality won't listen to a deranged bigot in the White House listening to the voices in his head, which is stuck in 1970.

Even according to his own analysis in his Executive Order, half of the components in USA made cars are imported, which will have a 25% tariff on them. I doubt if that can be "absorbed". If it is, that's a chunk off the stock market value by loss of returns.

And it would take years to mitigate and bring production on-shore. And when it is on-shore, comparative advantage means that it will still be more expensive, or they would not have sourced it abroad.

Here's Trump's own analysis:

In 2024, Americans bought approximately 16 million cars, SUVs, and light trucks, and 50% of these vehicles were imports (8 million).
Of the other 8 million vehicles assembled in America and not imported, the average domestic content is conservatively estimated at only 50% and is likely closer to 40%.
Therefore, of the 16 million cars bought by Americans, only 25% of the vehicle content can be categorized as Made in America.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adjusts-imports-of-automobiles-and-automobile-parts-into-the-united-states/

Here's a paper from 2007 lamenting that 25% of parts in US made cars were imported, and how far it had gone up since 1997:
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2007/october-243

Nigelb said:

What's the end game here ?

Does he back down / invade Greenland as a distraction / get replaced by Vance / pretend it never happened ?

The announcement was a distraction from Signalgate, which is still running

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

Turns out they were right

@Strandjunker

Dear American citizens, whatever you wish more German citizens would have done in 1933, do that now.

https://x.com/Strandjunker/status/1905379784978293203

MattW said:

For an example of what this will do to the quality of cars made in the USA, consider that pickup trucks (not SUVs, I think) have had a 25% tariff on them since 1962.

The Chicken Tax.

Link on previous thread

I don't know how earthquake proof Myanmar is, I suspect not great. 7.7, depending on depth, doesn't sound good.

Pro_Rata said:

I don't know how earthquake proof Myanmar is, I suspect not great. 7.7, depending on depth, doesn't sound good.

scary videos emerging on TwiX

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

Taking the knee was more sinister than a seditious coup to overthrow a democratic election?

It’s desperate false equivalence . I didn’t see the so called woke brigade trying to overturn an election or a danger to democracy .

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Trump is trying to shift jobs back to the US including in car manufacturing via his tariffs but the risk is it just raises prices.

Starmer and Reeves are unlikely to benefit if they fail to get a hoped for trade with the US, anti Trump voters will just go LD or Green

You can't relocate complete supply chains in months that type of work is a multi year project with significant upfront costs.

Also on previous thread, the country that stands to benefit most from these tariffs is Mexico

Scott_xP said:

MattW said:

For an example of what this will do to the quality of cars made in the USA, consider that pickup trucks (not SUVs, I think) have had a 25% tariff on them since 1962.

The Chicken Tax.

Link on previous thread

In the spirit of "if you don't claim your own modest successes, nobody else will do it for you", here's my Chicken Tax link from 2 weeks ago .

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5150497/#Comment_5150497

MattW said:

For an example of what this will do to the quality of cars made in the USA, consider that pickup trucks (not SUVs, I think) have had a 25% tariff on them since 1962.

And USA made light trucks, which category covers pickups, have far lower safety standards in the USA even than USA made cars - through exemptions from safety rules for which the industry campaigns.

American cars last forever as the Cubans have shown. Trump should be able to reassure the car buying public by offering trips to American Cuba if the disagree.

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

And yet here we are in the Trump 2025 era where they are far better organised and far more deadly. And yet owning the libs is still your focus.

Not at all - British politics (and associated betting, though I'll admit primarily politics) is my interest. I find the constant Trump outrage on here quite wearisome and also oddly reversely-parochial. There's a lot of shit going on in this country and we're hanging on Trump’s every word (again).

Some might say pols in this country hanging on Trump’s every word is part of shit UK plc.

Theuniondivvie said:

Some woman from Ineos Grenadier on R4 this morning saying the tariffs were existential for her company and blaming the EU for not being reasonable with Trump. The Ratcliffe magic touch continues..

Surely something must be done to save the over-engineered Monaco tractor for the world?

Justbuyadefender.com (except in the US)

Theuniondivvie said:

Some woman from Ineos Grenadier on R4 this morning saying the tariffs were existential for her company and blaming the EU for not being reasonable with Trump. The Ratcliffe magic touch continues..

Surely something must be done to save the over-engineered Monaco tractor for the world?

I've no idea what is going on with AI Jeremy Clarkson but here is its review of the Grenadier (1 min video; maybe nsfw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF_hrD8va5Y

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

And yet here we are in the Trump 2025 era where they are far better organised and far more deadly. And yet owning the libs is still your focus.

Not at all - British politics (and associated betting, though I'll admit primarily politics) is my interest. I find the constant Trump outrage on here quite wearisome and also oddly reversely-parochial. There's a lot of shit going on in this country and we're hanging on Trump’s every word (again).

I partly agree with you - our problems remain regardless of who is the American president. However, Trump ending NATO and smashing the global economy make our problems worse. So it is directly relevant to the shit going on in this country.

You and the other alt-right people make a lot of noise about social issues being “the shit” that bothers you. Trump is not the solution to those either.

Foxy said:

I am looking forward to @williamglenn s explanation of who will pay the tariffs.

Why? Who cares what he thinks? Less focus on men is much more adult.

Pro_Rata said:

I don't know how earthquake proof Myanmar is, I suspect not great. 7.7, depending on depth, doesn't sound good.

Reportedly very close to surface. And Mandalay.
An under construction skyscraper in Bangkok has gone.
All in all, doesn't look rosy.

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

Trump is trying to shift jobs back to the US including in car manufacturing via his tariffs but the risk is it just raises prices.

Starmer and Reeves are unlikely to benefit if they fail to get a hoped for trade with the US, anti Trump voters will just go LD or Green

One trouble is that Trump claims to want tariffs to do two tings at once. One is to be a government revenue stream, which means continuing imports. The other is to onshore manufacturing jobs (not happening- high value manufacturing uses robots, low value manufacturing creates jobs but they're terrible jobs). Those two things contradict. The best he can hope for is a bit of both, but even that's unlikely.

What he probably really wants is the thrill of extorting what he sees as the weak kid's lunch money. Hence his insistence that the importer pays the tarrifs out of their own pocket, which isn't how anything ever works.

The stupid thing is that several manufacturers (eg Hyundai) were already planning massive investments in US manufacturing. The threat of tariffs would have been sufficient in that respect.

Perhaps he'll declare victory next week and forget about them again.

Still confusion as to how much the auto tariffs will be with Canada .

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/us-auto-tariffs-may-be-12-5-per-cent-ontario-government-officials-1.7494988

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

nico67 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

Taking the knee was more sinister than a seditious coup to overthrow a democratic election?

It’s desperate false equivalence . I didn’t see the so called woke brigade trying to overturn an election or a danger to democracy .

A reasonable question

@IAmSophiaNelson

Why did the entire press corps attack #JoeBiden daily for gaffes, age, a bad debate, and misspeaking. But not a F’in word ever on 78 year old Trump’s daily bullshit of “I don’t know”—“I didn’t sign it”—“I have no idea”—on national security, dead soldiers, #SignalGate, etc.

The answer of course being "the press corp were not concerned about being lynched for accurately reporting Biden"

They've taken the knee.

under duress

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Some woman from Ineos Grenadier on R4 this morning saying the tariffs were existential for her company and blaming the EU for not being reasonable with Trump. The Ratcliffe magic touch continues..

Surely something must be done to save the over-engineered Monaco tractor for the world?

I've no idea what is going on with AI Jeremy Clarkson but here is its review of the Grenadier (1 min video; maybe nsfw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF_hrD8va5Y

I think "drunk, school run mums" is perhaps Jordan.

Scott_xP said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:

nico67 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

Taking the knee was more sinister than a seditious coup to overthrow a democratic election?

It’s desperate false equivalence . I didn’t see the so called woke brigade trying to overturn an election or a danger to democracy .

A reasonable question

@IAmSophiaNelson

Why did the entire press corps attack #JoeBiden daily for gaffes, age, a bad debate, and misspeaking. But not a F’in word ever on 78 year old Trump’s daily bullshit of “I don’t know”—“I didn’t sign it”—“I have no idea”—on national security, dead soldiers, #SignalGate, etc.

The answer of course being "the press corp were not concerned about being lynched for accurately reporting Biden"

They've taken the knee.

under duress

It's duress now, because Team Trump is in charge. But there was a time when they weren't, and people who should have known better were already grovelling to them. That's much harder to justify.

TimS said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Trump is trying to shift jobs back to the US including in car manufacturing via his tariffs but the risk is it just raises prices.

Starmer and Reeves are unlikely to benefit if they fail to get a hoped for trade with the US, anti Trump voters will just go LD or Green

You can't relocate complete supply chains in months that type of work is a multi year project with significant upfront costs.

And it requires a degree of certainty about the tariff environment. Regular flip flopping by the US will freeze any concerted restructuring of supply chains.

It's far worse than that. His threats to the legal system will eventually, possibly quite quickly, undermine faith in contract law and then US economy is going down the toilet very fast.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Interesting take from John Bolton on Deutsche Welle. 12 minutes:

Former Trump advisor warns Europe, NATO not to overreact: Interview with John Bolton | DW News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU23-VXmJFU

(Personally I find him still too attached to the resilience of the US governance system. But he's right about not overreacting when we do not have a complete grasp.)

kle4 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

And yet here we are in the Trump 2025 era where they are far better organised and far more deadly. And yet owning the libs is still your focus.

Not at all - British politics (and associated betting, though I'll admit primarily politics) is my interest. I find the constant Trump outrage on here quite wearisome and also oddly reversely-parochial. There's a lot of shit going on in this country and we're hanging on Trump’s every word (again).

I partly agree with you - our problems remain regardless of who is the American president. However, Trump ending NATO and smashing the global economy make our problems worse. So it is directly relevant to the shit going on in this country.

Quite. Does the UK have a problem with overly focusing on US news and culture? Absolutely. But what the US President does matters a lot of the time unfortunately.

Its like saying things happening in Europe, like a war, dont matter for us, its just not true, the argument is over how much it matters.

I think the UK public and nerds often have a problem with contextualising in a USA which is as diverse, and has as many regions, as Europe.

One of things we are missing is a 21st Century Alistair Cooke.

MattW said:

kle4 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

And yet here we are in the Trump 2025 era where they are far better organised and far more deadly. And yet owning the libs is still your focus.

Not at all - British politics (and associated betting, though I'll admit primarily politics) is my interest. I find the constant Trump outrage on here quite wearisome and also oddly reversely-parochial. There's a lot of shit going on in this country and we're hanging on Trump’s every word (again).

I partly agree with you - our problems remain regardless of who is the American president. However, Trump ending NATO and smashing the global economy make our problems worse. So it is directly relevant to the shit going on in this country.

Quite. Does the UK have a problem with overly focusing on US news and culture? Absolutely. But what the US President does matters a lot of the time unfortunately.

Its like saying things happening in Europe, like a war, dont matter for us, its just not true, the argument is over how much it matters.

I think the UK public and nerds often have a problem with contextualising in a USA which is as diverse, and has as many regions, as Europe.

One of things we are missing is a 21st Century Alistair Cooke.

We have a 21st Century Alistair Cooke – last heard advocating tariffs on Uruguayan steak to protect Texan cattle farmers.

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's probably best not to use it in that way, but there's little point in railing aginst people who do.

MattW said:

kle4 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

And yet here we are in the Trump 2025 era where they are far better organised and far more deadly. And yet owning the libs is still your focus.

Not at all - British politics (and associated betting, though I'll admit primarily politics) is my interest. I find the constant Trump outrage on here quite wearisome and also oddly reversely-parochial. There's a lot of shit going on in this country and we're hanging on Trump’s every word (again).

I partly agree with you - our problems remain regardless of who is the American president. However, Trump ending NATO and smashing the global economy make our problems worse. So it is directly relevant to the shit going on in this country.

Quite. Does the UK have a problem with overly focusing on US news and culture? Absolutely. But what the US President does matters a lot of the time unfortunately.

Its like saying things happening in Europe, like a war, dont matter for us, its just not true, the argument is over how much it matters.

I think the UK public and nerds often have a problem with contextualising in a USA which is as diverse, and has as many regions, as Europe.

One of things we are missing is a 21st Century Alistair Cooke.

Yes. I am 100% against Trumpism and Trump but journalism doesn't just exist to tell me what I want to hear.

I can follow MSNBC which tells me 100% of what is wrong with Trump; I can (but don't much) follow Fox News etc that promote and whitewash Trumpism.

What is lacking, SFAICS, are sources which comment from the point of view of understanding both why Trumpism is clearly 100% opposeable but also why and how it is that Trumpian authoritarianism, lies, threats, illegalities, silencing and Hobbesian approaches can be and are supported and sustained knowingly by millions.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's best not to do so, but there's little point railing aginst people who do.

Boo and hiss to that! And, yes, I shall continue to point out when people use 'decimate' incorrectly.

Red Bull, by demoting Liam Lawson, have literally decimated their team.

dixiedean said:

State of Emergency in Bangkok.
Would have been handy to have a correspondent on the scene.

Looks like the earthquake is centered on Sagaing, a little west of Mandalay. I spent a few weeks teaching there 20 years ago. It's a sort of Bhuddist Canterbury full of monasteries and Bhuddist shrines. Pagodas there are mostly solid though. It was a lovely spot.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

I agree with the last sentence of the article:

"The problem really only occurs when it is not clear which sense is being used"


And the point about the "misuse" of "literally" sometimes conjuring up absurd or humorous images is (or can be) a feature not a bug, as it can make us notice the literal meaning of metaphors that have died from overuse:

"It was literally pissing it down" is way more colourful than "It was pissing it down"

Jamie Redknapp is literally the worst pundit ever.

“He had to cut back inside onto his left, because he literally hasn’t got a right foot.’’

“Gareth Bale’s literally got three Lungs.’’

“The ball literally gave him a haircut.”

“These balls now – they literally explode off your feet.’’

“In his youth, Michael Owen was literally a greyhound.”

“He literally chopped him in half in that challenge.’’

“He’s literally just eaten the fourth official.’’

“Arsenal have literally passed the ball to death.’’

“He’s literally sold the defender a dummy there.’’

“Scholes has such a great footballing brain. He’ll see a picture in his head and literally paint it in front of you.’’

https://thefootballfaithful.com/jaime-redknapp-top-10-stupid-quotes/

algarkirk said:

MattW said:

kle4 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

And yet here we are in the Trump 2025 era where they are far better organised and far more deadly. And yet owning the libs is still your focus.

Not at all - British politics (and associated betting, though I'll admit primarily politics) is my interest. I find the constant Trump outrage on here quite wearisome and also oddly reversely-parochial. There's a lot of shit going on in this country and we're hanging on Trump’s every word (again).

I partly agree with you - our problems remain regardless of who is the American president. However, Trump ending NATO and smashing the global economy make our problems worse. So it is directly relevant to the shit going on in this country.

Quite. Does the UK have a problem with overly focusing on US news and culture? Absolutely. But what the US President does matters a lot of the time unfortunately.

Its like saying things happening in Europe, like a war, dont matter for us, its just not true, the argument is over how much it matters.

I think the UK public and nerds often have a problem with contextualising in a USA which is as diverse, and has as many regions, as Europe.

One of things we are missing is a 21st Century Alistair Cooke.

Yes. I am 100% against Trumpism and Trump but journalism doesn't just exist to tell me what I want to hear.

I can follow MSNBC which tells me 100% of what is wrong with Trump; I can (but don't much) follow Fox News etc that promote and whitewash Trumpism.

What is lacking, SFAICS, are sources which comment from the point of view of understanding both why Trumpism is clearly 100% opposeable but also why and how it is that Trumpian authoritarianism, lies, threats, illegalities, silencing and Hobbesian approaches can be and are supported and sustained knowingly by millions.

The why of Trumpism is simple.

A system of government has become perceived to be indifferent to interests of a large chunk of the population.

While in a social system that claims not to be an autocracy.

Along comes a man on a white horse proclaiming that he will fix everything.

See Alcibiades, Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Boulanger etc etc. History is full to bursting with them.

Counter example - Switzerland. Where economic and political power is devolved to levels where the people *perceive* that they are in control. They *feel* that they control the bin collection and the fixing of pot holes. And the pyramid of government above that.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's probably best not to use it in that way, but there's little point in railing aginst people who do.

It's a bit crass but infinitely better to an older generation like me as an intensifier than the F word.

Secondly, there is a literally (!) never ending issue about whether the meanings of words are fixed to their long term history and philology or whether the meaning is properly discerned by their current use.

(This is also a significant and complex element of how the class system works).

Decimate is a good example. The cause of sticking to its historical roots is, surely, lost and it would be crass(us) to try to revive it. And 'prevent' meaning 'go ahead' is a cause only for students of the 1662 prayer book.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jamie Redknapp is literally the worst pundit ever.

“He had to cut back inside onto his left, because he literally hasn’t got a right foot.’’

“Gareth Bale’s literally got three Lungs.’’

“The ball literally gave him a haircut.”

“These balls now – they literally explode off your feet.’’

“In his youth, Michael Owen was literally a greyhound.”

“He literally chopped him in half in that challenge.’’

“He’s literally just eaten the fourth official.’’

“Arsenal have literally passed the ball to death.’’

“He’s literally sold the defender a dummy there.’’

“Scholes has such a great footballing brain. He’ll see a picture in his head and literally paint it in front of you.’’

https://thefootballfaithful.com/jaime-redknapp-top-10-stupid-quotes/

To me these are all unintentionally, or maybe intentionally, humorous. Either way, Redknapp seems good value, as football punditry usually literally bores me to death.

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I am recalling the worst thing about the Trump 2016 era - it wasn't anything Trump actually did - it was that awful, awful screaming of the Libs.

And yet here we are in the Trump 2025 era where they are far better organised and far more deadly. And yet owning the libs is still your focus.

owning the libs right into autocracy.

algarkirk said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's probably best not to use it in that way, but there's little point in railing aginst people who do.

It's a bit crass but infinitely better to an older generation like me as an intensifier than the F word.

Secondly, there is a literally (!) never ending issue about whether the meanings of words are fixed to their long term history and philology or whether the meaning is properly discerned by their current use.

(This is also a significant and complex element of how the class system works).

Decimate is a good example. The cause of sticking to its historical roots is, surely, lost and it would be crass(us) to try to revive it. And 'prevent' meaning 'go ahead' is a cause only for students of the 1662 prayer book.

See also the near reversal in meaning of words like 'fulsome', 'awful', 'silly', 'nice'.

Ominous for Wes Streeting:

https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1905413580368851061

Mayfield (Redbridge) Council By-Election Result:

🏘️ ILI: 42.5% (New)
🌹 LAB: 26.1% (-44.7)
🌳 CON: 19.4% (+3.6)
➡️ RFM: 4.8% (New)
🔶 LDM: 3.9% (-3.0)
🌍 GRN: 3.3% (New)

Ilford Independents GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2022.

*adds numerous names to the space cannon ammunition list*

Tres said:

williamglenn said:

Ominous for Wes Streeting:

https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1905413580368851061

Mayfield (Redbridge) Council By-Election Result:

🏘️ ILI: 42.5% (New)
🌹 LAB: 26.1% (-44.7)
🌳 CON: 19.4% (+3.6)
➡️ RFM: 4.8% (New)
🔶 LDM: 3.9% (-3.0)
🌍 GRN: 3.3% (New)

Ilford Independents GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2022.

less than 25% turnout, so file under meh

They only managed 30% in 2022.

IanB2 said:

The Danes should just cut off the US's supply of Ozempic.

Novo Nordisk are rapidly losing ground to a new weight loss drug from Eli Lilly, Zepbound. I’d hate to work somewhere that bet the farm on Novo’s growth !!

I’m sure Eli Lilly would be euphoric should that happen, although worth pointing out Novo Nordisk do produce in America too.

williamglenn said:

Ominous for Wes Streeting:

https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1905413580368851061

Mayfield (Redbridge) Council By-Election Result:

🏘️ ILI: 42.5% (New)
🌹 LAB: 26.1% (-44.7)
🌳 CON: 19.4% (+3.6)
➡️ RFM: 4.8% (New)
🔶 LDM: 3.9% (-3.0)
🌍 GRN: 3.3% (New)

Ilford Independents GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2022.

But unsurprising given:

- the general election result in his constituency;
- that this is a local by-election without national implications;
- the drop in Labour support since July 2024.

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

I'm glad you think that. Debating any topic with someone with utterly predictable and one dimensional views isn't particularly interesting.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Cookie said:

For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?

But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.

Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.

So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

Most people can work things out from the context.

It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.

But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.

I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.

You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's probably best not to use it in that way, but there's little point in railing aginst people who do.

My 7 year old has recently started using 'literally' in literally every other sentence (exercise for the reader as to whether I literally mean 'literally' there! )

I've picked him up on it in a not-serious way - he's interested in language and word meanings, so was actually interested in learning what it really means - and we're now at the stage of using it playfully to try to annoy each other.

I'm not too bothered by the misuse. It was the excessive use that was mildly vexing. The Americanisms of 'could care less' and 'me either' grate a lot more, somehow.

williamglenn said:

dixiedean said:

State of Emergency in Bangkok.
Would have been handy to have a correspondent on the scene.

The footage of the building collapse should finally put to bed the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Are those Mossad agents running towards the camera?