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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
I think the greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that the Vikings spoke it badly, so we gave up on lots of the complicated grammar in Anglo-Saxon.
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'
"Replace fifth with thousandth"
The Lords would reject that.
Other peers can be made by the PM...
Indeed. There is not much in the UK's constitution that would stop a party with a majority in the Commons installing an authoritarian dictatorship, although theoretically the monarch could stop such a process.
I agree but the fact that the government / executive is chosen by MPs is an important constraint.
Trump can't be removed by Congress even if they wanted to for four years.
An unexpectedly authoritarian UK government can be ousted by a simple majority in the Commons. The threat of defection constraints how far governments are willing to go - even when they have significant majorities.
Arundel being Arundel, I hear some very obscure and often pleasing names given to children by parents. But I've just heard an exasperated mum just outside the bookshop door say, 'Please do get in the car, Shadrach.', which is just about the best so far.
It would be disappointing if he didn't have two brothers, Meshach and Abednego.
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
I think the greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that the Vikings spoke it badly, so we gave up on lots of the complicated grammar in Anglo-Saxon.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
Arundel being Arundel, I hear some very obscure and often pleasing names given to children by parents. But I've just heard an exasperated mum just outside the bookshop door say, 'Please do get in the car, Shadrach.', which is just about the best so far.
It would be disappointing if he didn't have two brothers, Meshach and Abednego.
I'm more inclined, the name being spoken, that there is a single sibling called Gorbag.
'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'
"Replace fifth with thousandth"
The Lords would reject that.
Other peers can be made by the PM...
Other peers can be made by the king. He doesn't have to accept every nomination put forward. There's also a limit on how fast they can be created.
Orf to the tower for Charlie !
Sorry but the British system is just fundamentally weaker at stopping a bad actor PM and party than the US one. It's only because our worst PMs haven't fundamentally been bad actors that everyone thinks our system is somehow more robust. It simply isn't the case. I suppose the king could try and stop it all, which means it comes down to who a MEGA rerun of the 1640s.
In reality, to the extent that the king might get involved directly, his easiest option would simply be to dissolve parliament and let the people decide.
But yes, the UK constitution is less robust against autocratic types than the US - mainly because since the last really big constitutional crisis, the executive has migrated from the crown into parliament. In 1689, parliament was the check on the executive (not a very effective one, it has to be said); now it's its power-base
Parliament's power was reaffirmed in 2019 by the Miller II judgement. The opposite to Marbury v Madison in the USA when their Supreme Court took power though it appeared to give it, Miller though appearing to nobble the gov't actually reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliament above themselves, the gov't and the king.
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
I think the greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that the Vikings spoke it badly, so we gave up on lots of the complicated grammar in Anglo-Saxon.
'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'
"Replace fifth with thousandth"
The Lords would reject that.
Other peers can be made by the PM...
Other peers can be made by the king. He doesn't have to accept every nomination put forward. There's also a limit on how fast they can be created.
Orf to the tower for Charlie !
Sorry but the British system is just fundamentally weaker at stopping a bad actor PM and party than the US one. It's only because our worst PMs haven't fundamentally been bad actors that everyone thinks our system is somehow more robust. It simply isn't the case. I suppose the king could try and stop it all, which means it comes down to who a MEGA rerun of the 1640s.
In reality, to the extent that the king might get involved directly, his easiest option would simply be to dissolve parliament and let the people decide.
But yes, the UK constitution is less robust against autocratic types than the US - mainly because since the last really big constitutional crisis, the executive has migrated from the crown into parliament. In 1689, parliament was the check on the executive (not a very effective one, it has to be said); now it's its power-base
There does seem to be something about constitutional monarchies that puts a bit of a check on untrammelled political power though. Not so much the specific checks and balances, but the soft power of the monarch. No PM can argue that l’etat c’est moi. There’s always another source of authority above.
Ceremonial presidents have the same effect, but they can be overridden and redesigned more easily. Take Erdogan and Turkey as an example.
Constitutional monarchy isn’t a foolproof check on power. Franco ruled Spain as an authoritarian under a king, and several Thai governments have done likewise, but even there monarchical intervention has sometimes held juntas in check.
Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.
Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer
The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176
What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.
Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.
I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.
I’m happy to name names. Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National Interest. https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/
Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo
Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either. https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html
I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?
Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging). The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.
Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
So rare earths aren't literally rare?
That is correct: take neodymium, which is used in the magnets of electric cars, as neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB).
Right now, most (80%) of neodymium is mined in China. But even five or six years ago, it was essentially 100% China. Now, the US and Australia are also big producers, and production is coming on stream in Russia, India, Vietnam, Myanmar and Brazil.
Something people thought that China had a strategic lock on... well, it turned out, it was simply no-one bothered mining it in other places because the demand wasn't big enough.
And as neodymium is actually more common than Copper, there's no shortage of places it can be mined from. It's just we didn't need to.
Greenland (ands for that matter Ukraine) are highly unlikely to ever be big sources of rare earths. The former because the costs of operating there will be through the roof, and the latter because no one actually know there are commercial quantities of rare earths there.
'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'
"Replace fifth with thousandth"
The Lords would reject that.
Other peers can be made by the PM...
Other peers can be made by the king. He doesn't have to accept every nomination put forward. There's also a limit on how fast they can be created.
Orf to the tower for Charlie !
Sorry but the British system is just fundamentally weaker at stopping a bad actor PM and party than the US one. It's only because our worst PMs haven't fundamentally been bad actors that everyone thinks our system is somehow more robust. It simply isn't the case. I suppose the king could try and stop it all, which means it comes down to who a MEGA rerun of the 1640s.
In reality, to the extent that the king might get involved directly, his easiest option would simply be to dissolve parliament and let the people decide.
But yes, the UK constitution is less robust against autocratic types than the US - mainly because since the last really big constitutional crisis, the executive has migrated from the crown into parliament. In 1689, parliament was the check on the executive (not a very effective one, it has to be said); now it's its power-base
Parliament's power was reaffirmed in 2019 by the Miller II judgement. The opposite to Marbury v Madison in the USA when their Supreme Court took power though it appeared to give it, Miller though appearing to nobble the gov't actually reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliament above themselves, the gov't and the king.
The disgusting hate filled coverage by the right wing media completely ignored that . Instead of celebrating that UK citizens rights can’t be removed by Henry VIII powers and have to have legislation passed through parliament we got weeks of judge bashing and lies from them intended to dupe the gullible .
If the SC had sided with the government our rights would have been at the whims of government ministers who at a stroke of a pen could remove them .
Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia
I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
They do.
They definitely love me. I have big fans in Novosibirsk
Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.
Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer
The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176
What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.
Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.
I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.
I’m happy to name names. Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National Interest. https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/
Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo
Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either. https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html
I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?
Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging). The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.
Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
So rare earths aren't literally rare?
That is correct: take neodymium, which is used in the magnets of electric cars, as neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB).
Right now, most (80%) of neodymium is mined in China. But even five or six years ago, it was essentially 100% China. Now, the US and Australia are also big producers, and production is coming on stream in Russia, India, Vietnam, Myanmar and Brazil.
Something people thought that China had a strategic lock on... well, it turned out, it was simply no-one bothered mining it in other places because the demand wasn't big enough.
And as neodymium is actually more common than Copper, there's no shortage of places it can be mined from. It's just we didn't need to.
Greenland (ands for that matter Ukraine) are highly unlikely to ever be big sources of rare earths. The former because the costs of operating there will be through the roof, and the latter because no one actually know there are commercial quantities of rare earths there.
There quite probably are - but in any event, mines take long term investment, and confidence that you can get your money back over the kong term. Absent a permanent and reliable ceasefire (ie something akin to NATO membership, or its European equivalent), there's zero incentive for anyone to invest there.
Which is why Trump's plan to take all the potential economic benefits, while contributing zero in terms of security guarantees, would be ridiculous, even if you could trust him. Which you can't.
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.
Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer
The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176
What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.
Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.
I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.
I’m happy to name names. Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National Interest. https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/
Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo
Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either. https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html
I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?
Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging). The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.
Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
So rare earths aren't literally rare?
That is correct: take neodymium, which is used in the magnets of electric cars, as neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB).
Right now, most (80%) of neodymium is mined in China. But even five or six years ago, it was essentially 100% China. Now, the US and Australia are also big producers, and production is coming on stream in Russia, India, Vietnam, Myanmar and Brazil.
Something people thought that China had a strategic lock on... well, it turned out, it was simply no-one bothered mining it in other places because the demand wasn't big enough.
And as neodymium is actually more common than Copper, there's no shortage of places it can be mined from. It's just we didn't need to.
Greenland (ands for that matter Ukraine) are highly unlikely to ever be big sources of rare earths. The former because the costs of operating there will be through the roof, and the latter because no one actually know there are commercial quantities of rare earths there.
Would it not be far easier and hassle free for US companies to mine for it and process in Greenland, than in the USA?
Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.
Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer
The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176
What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.
Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.
I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.
I’m happy to name names. Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National Interest. https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/
Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo
Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either. https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html
I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?
Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging). The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.
Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
So rare earths aren't literally rare?
That is correct: take neodymium, which is used in the magnets of electric cars, as neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB).
Right now, most (80%) of neodymium is mined in China. But even five or six years ago, it was essentially 100% China. Now, the US and Australia are also big producers, and production is coming on stream in Russia, India, Vietnam, Myanmar and Brazil.
Something people thought that China had a strategic lock on... well, it turned out, it was simply no-one bothered mining it in other places because the demand wasn't big enough.
And as neodymium is actually more common than Copper, there's no shortage of places it can be mined from. It's just we didn't need to.
Greenland (ands for that matter Ukraine) are highly unlikely to ever be big sources of rare earths. The former because the costs of operating there will be through the roof, and the latter because no one actually know there are commercial quantities of rare earths there.
Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia
I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
They do.
They definitely love me. I have big fans in Novosibirsk
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Is that intended to undermine his campaign ?
The funny thing is Mark Carney was actually a governor for twelve years of his career whereas Trudeau never was a governor in any shape or form, and now Trump refers to Carney as the PM but called Trudeau the governor
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 34m More deranged, dangerous threats. "We need Greenland for national security & international security...we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland" abcnews.go.com/Internationa...
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 34m More deranged, dangerous threats. "We need Greenland for national security & international security...we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland" abcnews.go.com/Internationa...
When did Trump first start talking about Greenland? Was it in his presidential campaign? Does he have a mandate from the voters? (I realise this is an academic point.)
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
When thinking of resource shortages, it is always worth remembering Oscar Wilde's definition of a gold mine: "A gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar at the top."
Why?
Because he owns the hole. And right now, it's producing nothing. If you give him money, and it works out, he's rich. And if it doesn't, it is you that loses all your money.
It is therefore in the interests of the man at the top to persuade you that (a) this hole contains gold, and (b) gold is incredibly rare, and therefore you will make a lot of money from extracting the gold from this hole.
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 34m More deranged, dangerous threats. "We need Greenland for national security & international security...we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland" abcnews.go.com/Internationa...
When did Trump first start talking about Greenland? Was it in his presidential campaign? Does he have a mandate from the voters? (I realise this is an academic point.)
At least as far back as 2019 in his first Presidency.
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Is that intended to undermine his campaign ?
It’s a strange situation for Carney because Trump continuing his anti Canada tirade helps the Libs . The less risk Canadians see from Trump they might feel more comfortable voting for other parties .
To insult two highly respected and free thinking politicians like this is disgraceful. It just shows how far standards in society have fallen. Anyone reposting this insulting photograph should feel utterly ashamed.
When thinking of resource shortages, it is always worth remembering Oscar Wilde's definition of a gold mine: "A gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar at the top."
Why?
Because he owns the hole. And right now, it's producing nothing. If you give him money, and it works out, he's rich. And if it doesn't, it is you that loses all your money.
It is therefore in the interests of the man at the top to persuade you that (a) this hole contains gold, and (b) gold is incredibly rare, and therefore you will make a lot of money from extracting the gold from this hole.
That works Robert, with the idea Trump is the lone, rather whimsical liar at the top of the hole. But when most of an industry who are SME in this and make money from the investments, security experts and the Broligarchy are all agreeing it’s a good idea - does that not change our mind how we see it?
I've been listening this afternoon to a podcast interview suggesting that one problem with recognising even the possibility of Russia's war on Ukraine is that we have a generation educated since 1991 into having Fukuyama's "end of history" as being such an inground cultural narrative for that generation that WW2 style war crimes are not possible in Europe.
And that is why Russia's repeat of them in Ukraine has received so little coverage, and political attention, and why Western Europe politics / culture has been so slow to wake up to the possibility of a direct threat. Expecting such a conflict on our home ground becomes almost impossible.
There are parallels with the impossibility of discussing the experience of soldiers in wars overseas, and domestic violence at home, which is why we can need to blame the other.
One analogy drawn was 1930s denial even of the possibility of what Germany did to minorities.
There are more facets to that analogy that I need to reflect on, including it working the other way sometimes, such as people from the USA not being able to conceive of societies as non-violent as we have in Western Europe, Looking up murder rates in Birmingham, Alabama, for 2024, how do we get on trying to imagine 3 homicides consistently each and every week of the year in Portsmouth, Swansea, Derby or Aberdeen? 3 murders in Nottingham by stabbing on one occasion was a national shock,
That's the frame where a tweet from Brazil about the current UK incoming ban on Ninja swords, expressed incredulity. It's actually a privilege to be in a country nonviolent enough for such a ban to be contemplated as significant.
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
The greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that there is no authoritarian "regulating" body, like the French language has with the Academie Francaise.
I think the greatest thing about our beautiful English language is that the Vikings spoke it badly, so we gave up on lots of the complicated grammar in Anglo-Saxon.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”
I agree with not defending its purity, but nevertheless, it is the case that all the idiosyncrasies and charm of British English that you have described is being eroded away by ubiquitous American usages due to social media, TV and other forms of what are essentially cultural imperialism. I think PB's right thinking commentariat would be saddened by the prospect of many other peoples' languages and dialects being extinguished - I happen to think that British English (and all its regional and home nation variations) are worth preserving, enjoying and defending.
I am definitely not visiting the US again while Trump is still in office.
Which way did the cash transfer?
I have heard both USA paid El Salvador $6m, and vice-versa.
The US paid El Salvador, $20,000 per detainee, totalling ~$6 million, with additional payments of up to $15 million possible.
So who is this Camilla person on twatter claiming Rubio "admits" Venezuelans "sold to El Salvador".
Ahem, checking - Press TV.
That leaves me a little confused as to whether Rubio is actually one of Trump's mushrooms, or Iran's official TV station Press TV (iirc) is playing a strange game.
This must be close to our best ever day for renewables? Been bumping around the baseline of 3-5GW of gas for over 12 hours; the spot price of electricity was negative £0.37 per MWh at 12.30pm.
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Is that intended to undermine his campaign ?
The funny thing is Mark Carney was actually a governor for twelve years of his career whereas Trudeau never was a governor in any shape or form, and now Trump refers to Carney as the PM but called Trudeau the governor
Mr Chump actually spends his time removing governors:
governor : an attachment to a machine (such as a gasoline engine) for automatic control or limitation of speed
The plan for Canada?
I still say Canada should offer status as a Province to Alaska. Given that they both have massive energy resources desired by the USA, it's a logical union.
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Is that intended to undermine his campaign ?
The funny thing is Mark Carney was actually a governor for twelve years of his career whereas Trudeau never was a governor in any shape or form, and now Trump refers to Carney as the PM but called Trudeau the governor
Mr Chump actually spends his time removing governors:
governor : an attachment to a machine (such as a gasoline engine) for automatic control or limitation of speed
The plan for Canada?
I still say Canada should offer status as a Province to Alaska. Given that they both have massive energy resources desired by the USA, it's a logical union.
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.
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.
A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".
This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
A recent discussion informed me, to my embarrassment, that pace Wittgenstein means "my point is against the argument of Wittgenstein". If you wanted to agree with him, it should be per. So per Wittgenstein, not pace Wittgenstein.
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.
Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer
The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176
What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.
Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.
I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.
I’m happy to name names. Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National Interest. https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/
Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo
Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either. https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html
I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?
Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging). The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.
Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
So rare earths aren't literally rare?
They aren't earths either.
So what do we call earth that is literally rare.......
Comments
Trump can't be removed by Congress even if they wanted to for four years.
An unexpectedly authoritarian UK government can be ousted by a simple majority in the Commons. The threat of defection constraints how far governments are willing to go - even when they have significant majorities.
or am I getting confused?
The opposite to Marbury v Madison in the USA when their Supreme Court took power though it appeared to give it, Miller though appearing to nobble the gov't actually reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliament above themselves, the gov't and the king.
Ceremonial presidents have the same effect, but they can be overridden and redesigned more easily. Take Erdogan and Turkey as an example.
Constitutional monarchy isn’t a foolproof check on power. Franco ruled Spain as an authoritarian under a king, and several Thai governments have done likewise, but even there monarchical intervention has sometimes held juntas in check.
If you're "not productive".
@marcorubio backtracks and admits that Venezuelans sold to El Salvador were NOT necessarily members of Tren de Aragua.
Rubio says the U.S. sent a “combination of people” who were “not productive to the United States” and who were “removable” by law.
https://x.com/camilapress/status/1905396651381960739
I am definitely not visiting the US again while Trump is still in office.
A prisoner who was freed as part of Sir Keir Starmer’s controversial prison scheme killed someone on the same day he was released
Right now, most (80%) of neodymium is mined in China. But even five or six years ago, it was essentially 100% China. Now, the US and Australia are also big producers, and production is coming on stream in Russia, India, Vietnam, Myanmar and Brazil.
Something people thought that China had a strategic lock on... well, it turned out, it was simply no-one bothered mining it in other places because the demand wasn't big enough.
And as neodymium is actually more common than Copper, there's no shortage of places it can be mined from. It's just we didn't need to.
Greenland (ands for that matter Ukraine) are highly unlikely to ever be big sources of rare earths. The former because the costs of operating there will be through the roof, and the latter because no one actually know there are commercial quantities of rare earths there.
If the SC had sided with the government our rights would have been at the whims of government ministers who at a stroke of a pen could remove them .
Con 41.1% (+18.3)
LD 36,4% (-5.4)
I have heard both USA paid El Salvador $6m, and vice-versa.
Which is why Trump's plan to take all the potential economic benefits, while contributing zero in terms of security guarantees, would be ridiculous, even if you could trust him. Which you can't.
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1905638870227824651
I just finished speaking with Prime Minister Mark Carney, of Canada. It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada's upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attractions-g150800-Activities-Mexico_City_Central_Mexico_and_Gulf_Coast.html
“Unislamic”
Genius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatite#Occurrence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastnäsite#Occurrence
·
34m
More deranged, dangerous threats. "We need Greenland for national security & international security...we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland" abcnews.go.com/Internationa...
https://bsky.app/profile/shashj.bsky.social/post/3llh2t3eqp22p
Why?
Because he owns the hole. And right now, it's producing nothing. If you give him money, and it works out, he's rich. And if it doesn't, it is you that loses all your money.
It is therefore in the interests of the man at the top to persuade you that (a) this hole contains gold, and (b) gold is incredibly rare, and therefore you will make a lot of money from extracting the gold from this hole.
To insult two highly respected and free thinking politicians like this is disgraceful.
It just shows how far standards in society have fallen.
Anyone reposting this insulting photograph should feel utterly ashamed.
NEW THREAD
And that is why Russia's repeat of them in Ukraine has received so little coverage, and political attention, and why Western Europe politics / culture has been so slow to wake up to the possibility of a direct threat. Expecting such a conflict on our home ground becomes almost impossible.
There are parallels with the impossibility of discussing the experience of soldiers in wars overseas, and domestic violence at home, which is why we can need to blame the other.
One analogy drawn was 1930s denial even of the possibility of what Germany did to minorities.
There are more facets to that analogy that I need to reflect on, including it working the other way sometimes, such as people from the USA not being able to conceive of societies as non-violent as we have in Western Europe, Looking up murder rates in Birmingham, Alabama, for 2024, how do we get on trying to imagine 3 homicides consistently each and every week of the year in Portsmouth, Swansea, Derby or Aberdeen? 3 murders in Nottingham by stabbing on one occasion was a national shock,
That's the frame where a tweet from Brazil about the current UK incoming ban on Ninja swords, expressed incredulity. It's actually a privilege to be in a country nonviolent enough for such a ban to be contemplated as significant.
Ahem, checking - Press TV.
That leaves me a little confused as to whether Rubio is actually one of Trump's mushrooms, or Iran's official TV station Press TV (iirc) is playing a strange game.
governor
: an attachment to a machine (such as a gasoline engine) for automatic control or limitation of speed
The plan for Canada?
I still say Canada should offer status as a Province to Alaska. Given that they both have massive energy resources desired by the USA, it's a logical union.
governor
: an attachment to a machine (such as a gasoline engine) for automatic control or limitation of speed
The plan for Canada?
I still say Canada should offer status as a Province to Alaska. Given that they both have massive energy resources desired by the USA, it's a logical union.
What do you think about this one from your team? Critic of Putin arrested and due to be sent back to Russia.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/harvard-scientist-russia-deportation-antiwar-b2723063.html