the democrat party will lose if a segment of their voter base abstains from voting
and
the democrat platform can afford to completely ignore a segment of their voter base so doesn’t need to adjust their platform
are two mutually exclusive positions
the first result is the wikipedia article, which as we’ve discussed, is several thousand words long
i’m not trying to justify my use of language, i’m explaining why you’re wrong, and you’re responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary
you’re not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you’re saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary
those are two completely different things and it’s astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with “i’m sure you can do better than that”
doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn’t the play you seem to think it is
the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it’s possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry
I’m sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.
it’s more that they don’t have a definition at all
they use it similarly to “woke”, in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context
if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you’d get something like “person i disagree with to the point of dislike”, at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as “i don’t like people i don’t like”
it’s completely dissimilar
“liberal” is significantly less specific in its implications, both in terms of modern day parlance and historical roots, than “zionist”
A man walks into a bar and orders three beers.
The bartender brings him the three beers, and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third, until they’re gone.
He then orders three more and the bartender says, “Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one, and I’ll bring you a fresh one as soon as you’re low.”
The man says, “You don’t understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the Ireland. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night, we’d still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three beers, too, and we’re drinking together.”
The bartender thinks it’s a wonderful tradition, and every week he sets up the guy’s three beers. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them and then orders two more.
The bartender says sadly, “Knowing your tradition, I’d just like to just say that I’m sorry you’ve lost a brother.”
The man replies, “Oh, my brothers are fine. I just quit drinking.”
you ask a comedically loaded question, receive one in response, then get mad?
what?
if there were some figures i could fiddle to fit that narrative, do you think that would mean that cutting down 250 acres of forest would actually be worth it rather than a convenience somebody has gussied up as “necessary” because it would make them a profit?
Redfalls team is done for sure.
which is wild, because there’s clearly a lot of talent there that was just spunked up the wall trying to create a game that any idiot could see right from the outset was conceptually awful
pop it on the list
a restaurant, maybe
a grocery store, what?
sounds like there’s already a crowd?
also, how many times have you decided to visit a food store because it was busy?
wouldn’t it be a more effective protest to drive there, park, spend 3 hours browsing the aisles, before finally buying a single pint of milk
buddy if your replies get any dumber i’m going to have to assume you’re an andrew tate fan
what are you asking me to prove? that tate was held without being charged?
can’t withhold a vote because policy won’t change because if it did people would withhold their vote and then the policy would change