If you’re going to be doing this what style guide are you using? Why did you choose that one? Why is it the most useful option? You’ve made an entire account about enforcing apostrophe usage but don’t have any sources or explanation to back it up on your bio.

I thought it would be fun to try 90’s since that looks more appealing than '90s. We don’t use this ’ to cut off preceding symbols in anything other than 'twas which also looks wrong.

Then I thought It was useful that you were doing this because imposing whatever the current most used trend for apostrophes would help facilitate communication between the greatest number of English readers and writers. It would be democratic even.

Then I realized I had no idea what the current most used trend for apostrophes even was and without any sources no way of knowing if your style was anything resembling that. (I like 90s now btw.)

So then I looked up who even made grammar anyway and it turns out a lot of people but a couple individuals stand out.

https://www.wordgenius.com/who-actually-created-all-these-grammar-rules/Xr0yWBPAJQAG8w-n

The First Grammarian

Modern English grammar can be traced back to William Bullokar, a printer from the 16th century. Back in 1586, Bullokar wrote the Pamphlet for Grammar, which we now know as the first English grammar resource. His grammar resource compared English to Latin. He also created a phonetic 40-letter English alphabet, addressing the 40 different phonetic sounds he identified. His goal was to increase literacy in England and make it easier for foreigners to learn the language.

Robert Lowth is one of the more notable grammarians who built upon Bullokar’s work. He wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar in the late 18th century, and this book formed the groundwork for many other grammarians as they standardized English grammar.

Lowth’s book became known as one of the first examples of prescriptive grammar, or one establishing the rules for how grammar should be used. By contrast, descriptive grammar simply explains how people actually use grammar.

Creating a System

Lowth wasn’t the only one who tried to standardize grammar. Many others preceded him and many more followed. British schoolmistress Ann Fisher was the first published female grammarian and an early user of an all-purpose pronoun. She wrote A New Grammar in 1745, shortly before Lowth’s work came on the scene, and her book was released in 30 editions over 50 years. Fisher’s work was one of the first to detail modern grammar practices, many of which are still in use today.

That all being said, what’s the style guide or grammar reference book every English writer on lemmy should refer to?

Wrong to who? You?

*in the 90’s

This is meaningless gatekeeping imposed by older people on younger people. If you were a child in the 90’s you were a 90’s kid. The validity of your lived experience doesn’t depend on your current ability.

By OP’s reasoning people who no longer remember their childhood no longer count as a kid for their decade. Eventually everyone will be dead and then according to the OP no one will have lived either.

I remember watching Power Rangers and Barney in the 90’s which I was born. Take that meaningless distinction.

But if you agree that Hamas is despicable, why not call for it to surrender?

Hamas should turn themselves over the ICJ, they won’t, but this would not stop Israel.

Why can’t you say war criminals should turn themselves over to the ICJ?

You don’t think it would stop Israel, but it could

The actions of one group of people have no bearing over the actions of another group of people. Hamas does not control Israel. Hamas is not making Israel kill civilians. Israel can stop killing civilians whenever they want.

Because you don’t want Israel to ‘win’?

What is Israel winning here? Global isolation? Crimes against humanity? Increasing antisemitism?

The chance of saving children isn’t worth that much to you?

No, killing children isn’t worth making the world a worse place for all of us.

They would have to, and they would.

This is an appeal to common decency fallacy. No one is forced to do something because it is decent. Israel is proof of that with it’s indecent attacks on civilians. The evidence we have indicates Israel’s governments wants to be at war to maintain its grip on power. They are actively ignoring a proposal that is effectively equivalent to one they already agreed to previously.

My suspicion is that Israel only agreed thinking Hamas would not. Now that Hamas has agreed to it Israel is in an awkward spot. And no doubt Israel would be even more mask off if Hamas blatantly surrendered.

so angry and attacking of Israel.

Because your argument is a collection of fallacies and genocide apologia. And it’s not the first time it’s been trotted out. Hamas isn’t the organization bombing Gaza right now. And sure Hamas definitely wanted this to happen, but that doesn’t excuse Israel’s disregard of international law and human decency.

You react vehemently against the notion that Hamas should surrender

The idea that Israel would cease attacking civilians if Hamas surrendered is false based on the evidence of a genocide being live streamed to our phones. For Israel, the genocide is the goal. Netanyahu wants to form a greater Israel and deny Palestinian statehood.

There is no justification for attacking civilians. Calling Palestinians human shields is not a valid legal or moral argument, it is a dehumanization tactic. The fact that Israel is at war with Hamas doesn’t matter. If Israel would follow international law this would end today. If Israel would acknowledge their shared humanity with the Palestinians this would end today.

Israel is the one bombing civilians. If Israel would stop bombing civilians this would end today. edit: typos

If the Israelis who fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were 18 in 1948 that would make them 77 years older or 95 years old. This is like Israel hunting down the Nazis on their death bed. At some point most of these people died of old age. It’s going to be the odd centenarian who faces justice in 2030.

I am not a Nazi or a Zionist. I do not seek the total extermination of groups of people. This has no appeal to me. Put whoever in jail or prison that deserves it but you will likely be transferring them to a hospital and then a morgue shortly after.

Here is the current list of centenarians now as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_centenarians

Searching by Israeli I get seven matches:

• Dutch-Israeli | Holocaust survivor[11]
• Israeli | Air Force major general[68]
• German-born British-Israeli | Journalist, actor, businessman and Holocaust survivor[180]
• Israeli | Military official and expert[222]
• Ukrainian-Israeli | Olympic fencer[262]
• Israeli | Nuclear physicist[277]
• Polish-born Israeli | War veteran[306]

Unless you speak some of these languages I recommend the language translator option that should appear in the top right of your browser’s search bar.

Are we arresting the Polish guy who fought in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 against the Nazis? He also fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War against Arabs.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853294

Looks like the Major General and the Air Force Commander would fit squarely into the kind of people you would want in the Hauge.

There’s also the Dutch-Israeli woman who is a holocaust survivor to consider.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2538252-107-jarige-holocaustoverlevende-krijgt-amsterdamse-andreaspenning

And the British-Israeli holocaust survivor who rescued soldiers from the Battle of Normandy and is the oldest active journalist. But his quote about October 7th, published on January 7th, 2024 hasn’t aged well.

“I’ve always felt a deep connection to the Jewish people and our homeland. I value the moments I’ve spent fighting against tyranny and promoting the truth through journalism. I could never have imagined that at the age of 100 I would be a witness to the horrific pogrom against Jews that took place on October 7 and the terrifying resurgence of antisemitism since. As I celebrate today, I also pray for the future of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Probably seemed like a reasonable statement a few months after October 7th.

https://www.jwire.com.au/walter-bingham-kindertransport-survivor-celebrates-100th-birthday/

There is the Ukrainian Israeli Olympic fencer

A man who survived the Battle of Stalingrad and the Chernobyl disaster.

Источник: https://www.sovsport.ru/chronicles/articles/segodnya-istoricheskij-den-starejshemu-otechestvennomu-olimpijczu-100-let

(The site can copy the link when you paste a quote. Cool.)

And here’s a softball, the Israeli nuclear physicist was in the Palmach. Easy Hague material.

Those are the seven who are 100 or older now. Is this something people are seriously interested engaging in for people younger than that who would now be in their nineties? Or does this context not even matter and people want these people in prison regardless? And is prison good enough or do people want blood? Punishing these people in any capacity won’t undermine Zionism. There is no utility in such an endeavor if the goal is defeating Zionism, an ideology.

Also, since I identified seven Jewish centenarians which comes off as a sus thing to do and some people like saying things that start off with ‘If you were a Jew’, I’m a Russian-Jewish American and undoubtedly a mix of European ethnic groups as I am pasty white, but not an Israeli. edit: typo

Israel as a zionist Jewish ethno-state must be replaced with a multi-ethnic pluralistic state. Part of accomplishing that requires Netanyahu’s governing coalition collapse. A great way to accomplish that would be to send Israel’s government to the Hague.

I know that. Read the comment section. There is a user arguing against shutting down the government on the basis of a third option that the user cannot give in any detail. We need to be pushing the Democrats for a shutdown because they will not do it on their own. The last thing we need is to give Democrats an out when we do not have a third option.

No shit. Look at what is being argued in this comment section. We need the Democrats to shutdown the government. A user is determined to push a third option instead that the user cannot list. The last thing we need is for people to assume there is a third option when we don’t have one. edit: typos

‘Do you condemn Hamas?’ is a meme at this point. No one is taking that far-right talking point seriously.

Your argument is using a motte-and-bailey fallacy. It begins by solely blaming Hamas for the continuation of the war for not surrendering when it is quite clear that Israel has no intention of accepting such a surrender. Israel is actively ignoring a ceasefire proposal they previously agreed to right now.

Then when pressed your argument retreats to asserting most people refuse to put partial blame on Hamas. I condemn Hamas. A majority of people on here do. No one is interested in wasting their time saying that. ‘Do you condemn Hamas’ has been done quite a bit at this point. There’s nothing weird about not taking your genocide apologia seriously.

Yes, because Israel is explicitly a settler colonial project. They could keep attacking Gaza like they keep attacking Syria despite Syria not doing anything hostile to them. Israel is there to take land while killing and displacing the current inhabitants.

US support for Israel is not derived from popular support, but by the profits of the military industrial complex. As long the conflict is profitable it will continue.

Netanyahu’s has explicitly stated it is the goal of his generation to deny Palestinian statehood.

Hamas should turn themselves over the ICJ, they won’t, but this would not stop Israel. Right-wing groups want their opposing counterparts to exist so they have an excuse to commit more atrocities later. Hamas wants nothing more for everyone in Gaza to die so they can have two million martyrs. Israel’s far right government wanted a pretext to carry out this genocide. It’s undoubtedly part of why Netanyahu help found Hamas. Which has been known publicly since 2019. edit: typo

https://newrepublic.com/article/176962/hamas-finances-funding-sources-palestinian-authority

For fascists, the constant state of conflict is the goal. In Netanyahu’s case this is doubly true, because he could end up in prison if his government collapses.

This is your reminder that we are in a make a deal or shut down situation because of how the Constitution requires the Democrats to have a majority of votes to do anything. Which in theory is how things should work in a majority rule democracy. edit: typo

Without the shutdown Democrats wouldn’t have any leverage right now. Which isn’t great, but is better than nothing for fighting fascism. It would have been better if Democrats had been socialists from the get go and gotten rid of the debt ceiling when they had power but they weren’t and they didn’t.

If you have a third option please share it. And make sure you’re getting fresh air in your building.

Again with the false dichotomy. I can be against allowing a shutdown and against appeasing the fascists at the same time.

No you cannot and still be providing a logically consistent argument. Those positions are mutually exclusive.

Those two are NOT the only options are pretending otherwise is playing into the hands of fascists and other demagogues such as Schumer.

There are no mechanisms in the Constitution for the minority party to enact meaningful change or to obstruct that do not involve shutting down the government.

What are the other options?

Some ABSOLUTELY do.

They are a tiny minority that does not include Trump.

Again, they’re not unanimous. The Freedumb Caucus and other factions always defect at first.

They defect in favor of a shutdown.

Again, tell that to the people who might survive if a third option is accomplished.

What third option?

If they can’t do anything while in the minority, why show up to work at all? Why do we keep paying them if they’re literally powerless and thus useless?

Exactly. Hence a government shutdown.

The answer is that they’re NOT anywhere near as powerless as you and they pretend. They have ways of subverting or at least delaying the whole absurd procedure if they’re willing to.

Yes. With a government shutdown.

Anyway, I’ve said what needs to be said and you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re not going to understand it no matter how many times I repeat myself and/or rephrase things, so we’re done here. Have the day you deserve.

Open your windows. You may have carbon monoxide poisoning.

You’re literally doing what you are accusing me of doing with all that nonsense I didn’t quote. Like a Republican. It’s a blatantly clear cut situation. If you have a third option to this situation speak up! Say what that third option is. That’s how it’s obvious you’re the one arguing in bad faith here or have carbon monoxide poisoning. edit: typo

If you knew a third option you could have listed it!

Couldn’t agree more.

Couldn’t disagree more.

You’re doing the Patrick Star and Man Ray meme to me right now.

Correct. There’s also no world where a government shutdown is a good thing.

There is in a world where a person says ‘Absolutely’ to:

The fascists are going to try to kill us all whether we stand up to them or not

Absolutely.

These are mutually exclusive positions given what we are discussing. Your argument at the same time acknowledging that the fascists present the same danger regardless of our level of resistance and yet arguing that there is some how more danger if we resist. You’re argument contains a glaring logical fallacy and thus is not compelling in any capacity. Your argument is a logically invalid position for this discussion.

Does your room contain any windows?

Democrats have tools at their disposal to gum up the machine and sway public opinion until they find a way to avert a shutdown without greenlighting something even worse. Using those tools is one of the most important parts of their job.

Incorrect. Passing legislation in the US requires control of both houses of Congress and the executive branch or two-thirds of both houses of Congress. There are no other meaningful tools besides a government shutdown to gum up the works. And people are sick of performative action from the Democrats.

Full stop. You aren’t making sense. So I’m left with either you’re trolling me and the rest of us for fun or you’re suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. For the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt and your health I’m going to assume it’s the latter, so the carbon monoxide poisoning.

Because the parts of the government exempted just so happens to be the only parts that the fascists always want to fund.

So? The Democrats don’t have the power to do anything about that so it isn’t relevant.

kill even MORE people.

So you’re ok with some people dying.

That’s what I’M asking!

No you’re trying to justify killing a few of us now, so the rest of us can wait out fascism.

Yes and no: massive fundamental reform of the government into something befitting today’s society is needed to achieve that goal.

This is laughably unattainable with the current Congress. We’ll need to flip the Supreme Court with multiple consecutive presidential elections to even be able to start taking swings at that. We’re never getting there if Democrats vote for Republican spending cuts with each continuing resolution.

They HAVE done it. Several times. That’s why they came up with this whole farce to begin with.

Not in 2025 with this presidential administration and Congress. Which are the only ones that are relevant to this discussion.

Not necessarily, no. The Freedumb Caucus usually holds the whole thing hostage to make whatever abomination the leadership suggests even WORSE.

They definitely do. They could all not vote on a bill if their goal was a government shutdown. They have the majority in both houses. And Trump could veto any bill if he wanted. edit: typo

some don’t

Yeah, the majority that align with Trump on everything as often as humanly possible.

Whether the government shuts down or not

Then why not shut it down.

Because the parts of the government exempted just so happens to be the only parts that the fascists always want to fund.

Sounds like they’ve got everything they need either way. If they’re so good at spinning why not shut it down. Because people are turning against them in town halls all across the country. They know there are limits to what even they can get away with. That’s why they delayed portions of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ until after the midterms.

…are you new? 99% of the times that the Dem leadership ever uses what leverage they have effectively, it’s to benefit their owner donors, not regular people who need it the most.

What is going on here? I brought up that Schumer is never going to allow a government shutdown. You’re trying to argue that we’re risking lives by doing a shutdown when that’s what you’re arguing for by arguing against a shutdown. I’m surprised you don’t like Schumer since he’s doing exactly what you think is best. If I didn’t know better I would say you were trolling. But I’ve never seen a troll hold mutually exclusive positions in their heads let alone post them in the same comment before. If you know Schumer is bad for not doing a shutdown why do you also think shutdowns are bad? Surely either Schumer is correct and at least somewhat good for opposing a shutdown or bad for opposing it.

Is the ventilation in your building okay? Carbon monoxide poisoning is no joke.

Yes.