Is this an I Saw The TV Glow reference? Great movie!

If you want a linguistic deep dive how this isn’t correct:

https://lingthusiasm.com/post/662535562508517376/lingthusiasm-episode-60-thats-the-kind-of

I saw a drawing of that tree. Does that count?

Can you preprogram a watch to do that? Like set a timer and impress the other person who thinks it’s real

Now you want our opinion on garlic bread?

We don’t know how long the work day of the doctor was. For all we know, he would have also called her dog “mom” if that’s the only companion

Grammar. The sentence is ambiguous and punctuation would and could not disambiguate. Easiest way to disambiguate would be introducing an object “do not touch the items yourself” or rephrasing “on your own”; or, if the other meaning is intended “do not lay hand on yourself”. But the sentence as it is is correct for both readings.

That doesn’t answer the question because all roses belong to the genus “Rosa”. So there is a common ancestor of all roses and every plant descendent of that ancestor is a rose by definition. I ask you for a definition of Roman that exists independent of the word and you have me an example that does have a definition that exists independent of people using the word. Romans, on the other hand are biologically indistinguishable from other humans. They look, smell and taste the same (allegedly).

The difference is that Roman is an identity marker and therefore a social construct. That doesn’t mean it’s not real. It’s like asking for a home no one ever lived in. Before construction, there is no house, just stone or wood or what ever. You could point to a cave and say “that could be a home” but it’s not a home unless someone lives there. A home doesn’t exist outside social reality. It might have different names but it needs humans it identity it as such.

For identity markers, the name is much more tied to the construct. The name can change tho. The first Christians didn’t identify as such. In fact, the word started as an insult and was later reclaimed. But you can trace back a social group that later grew to identity as Christians.

It’s not that a social group came to decide they need a city and than built Rome and live there happily ever after. I’m not sure but I guess it was a settlement that grew or sever settlements that merged or something but at no point was there a social group that meaningfully preexisted the city.

Same with modern nationalities. There is nothing biological that differentiates Germans from its neighbors. Just a nation state that invented German identity and everything distinctly German came later.

That’s what I thought but apparently “shit” is metaphorical, I still don’t really get it

Please don’t post the screenshot in this community. Worst mistake of my life

What does that mean to you? What is the essence of being Roman that preexisted the name?

The question is if they were considered and/or identified as Romans before there was a city called Rome

Some people think autism means taking everything literally but that’s actually kleptomania

2D chess

Gen Alpha slang is beyond me

It’s always April 1st somewhere

German (in this case Freud) has a word for this: Penisneid (penis envy)

Cats have different genders. It’s like saying my favorite color is blue, like, is it dark blue, light blue, royal blue, ocean blue, greenish blue, bluish green…

Can confirm, I was the Uber driver

Neither are QOOP or BOOD