In an otherwise-enjoyable article, The Federalist saith:
“Beginning in 2016, the Democratic Party descended into the politics of hystericism.”
The word you are looking for (or should have been looking for) is hysteria. It’s a perfectly good word, has all sorts of linguistic roots, and should not be subjected to Jesse Jackson-style orotundity.
…and I don’t care. Because once again, my reading’s suspension has taken a pounding.
You Brits are supposed to have invented the language; why can’t you fucking speak it?
— Dennis Farina (Snatch)
Ummm “been sat” ? What the fuck does that mean? Should it read “been sitting” or “sat” or (what I think they wanted to say, but I can’t really tell) “left to sit”?
Creating compound verbs without regard to proper tense grates on me more than a Hillary Clinton campaign speech. Here’s another example of the same illiterate bullshit:
“He was sat on a bench” — nice mix of past imperfect (was) with the past perfect (sat) there, you illiterate asswipes. Correct usage:
“He was sitting on a bench” — OR —
“He sat on a bench” BUT NOT a combination of the two.
FFS, I need a drink, and it’s not even 7 o’clock yet.
…and so say all of us. What you should do, Gentle Readers, is not tarry here pondering such weighty grammatical sins; rather, you should speed over to Mr. Ishmael’s to see the rest of his excellent rant about, well, everybody. (He had me at “That Albino Cunt Johnson”, a.k.a, the soon-to-be-ex-BritPM, but it’s not the only gem.)
Invective at its very finest.
Read these two headlines — the first using standard pronoun terminology, the second the woke version — and see which one is more comprehensible.
So… being sexually exploited caused Doug Hutchison to get breast implants too? I am SO confused…
Here are the objects in question, by the way:
I report, you decide.
In an otherwise good article, American Greatness‘s Edward Ring states:
But the exception proves the rule.
It is a statement that makes no logical sense. Any exception to a rule actually disproves the rule, as a moment’s thought will show, because a rule is that which applies to all relevant circumstances. If there are any exceptions, it’s not a rule but a guideline. (/Captain Barbosa)
So where did this contradictory statement come from? Originally, the verb to prove came from the Latin word probere, which means to test. And yes, that was the word’s original meaning, for example when one “proves” (or tests) a mathematical theorem by subjecting its hypothesis (or theory) to a multitude of conditions. If all the conditions generate the same outcome, the hypothesis/theory becomes a theorem (or rule), and its “proof” means “having been tested”.
I’m probably wasting my time on this, because the phrase has become nigh-ubiquitous, and seldom called into question except during angry rants like this one.
For me, though, it’s still a speed bump.