Nobody here is upset - I pointed out that Lemmings are hypocrites in one specific area, they predictably didn’t like that and upped the vitriol, and I returned as good as I got. I’m very used to voicing uncomfortable truths on the internet - there’s no need for this weird, patronizing coddling thing you’ve got going on.

I’m more concerned with the hypocrisy than the tone policing myself, but either way I’m only returning the energy I’m being given.

You’re giving me the same “well if you don’t like it then you should just leave” rhetoric that Republicans use in response to my efforts to make this a better place? This thread is a hell of a trip.

The irony of posting this comment in this specific chain would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

Whatever gets you past the cognitive dissonance, chief.

I mean, federal overreach can certainly be seen as kinda like fascism, I suppose, though I think it dilutes an important term to say so under normal circumstances.

Under the current administration, though, yeah, it’s definitely fascism.

That’s the spirit! Anyone with a different opinion from mine can only be trolling, and doubly so if their opinion requires me to - gasp - question literally anything at all. Echo chambers are the Lemmy way, after all.

Except you don’t have to look 150 years ago to find literally dozens of modern issues where Lemmy happens to disagree with an individual state’s decision and demands that whatever issue it is be blanket mandated at the federal level.

Actually supporting states’ rights means supporting their right to sovereignty even when they make decisions you disagree with. The way Lemmy does it is to constantly demand federalization until the rare occasion when states’ rights happen to be useful to their argument, and then suddenly they’re all literalist constitutional scholars.

I care about labeling though, and I can overall be very happy with the overall effects of the ruling while also disagreeing with the specifics or even the reason the change happened.

Funny how gung ho Lemmy is about states’ rights all of a sudden.

How will this fuck over their competition? Like, what’s the actual argument there?

I suppose so, if even the dictionary is fine with being wrong. Luckily the UK and Germany have fixed this - here’s hoping for the US next!

Note that they will still be able to sell them though. The products are allowed - they just won’t be allowed to mislead consumers anymore. I really don’t understand why y’all are getting so up in arms about this.

And which food companies are those I wonder. Probably the ones with a business interest in keeping consumers confused.

I make a point to call it “oat juice” specifically because it’s not milk.

Everything here has been in good faith on my part; I was giving you the benefit of the doubt (and wasting my time in the process, it seems). Very appropriate for the thread in question, I guess.

Clearly you either lack the ability to engage in good faith or have reading comprehension issues, so I think I’ll leave the conversation here. Have a good one.

No, I made the argument quite explicit. Since it still seems to have gone over your head somehow, I’ll simplify it here:

“Y’all hate etymological arguments right up to the point that they appear to support your position, and then suddenly you’re in love with them. That makes y’all hypocrites.”

That’s all. That’s my argument. You’re correct that it’s right, of course.

Make sure to check out my edit in response to your edit.

That’s exactly what’s wrong with this post - thanks for putting it so succinctly.

Edit in response to your edit: you have no idea what my stance is, because I haven’t stated one other than “y’all are hypocrites”.

Completely aside from the post, as a linguist my stance is always “language always changes, and meaning is determined by usage”, because both of those positions are demonstrably correct.