How much do you make? I’m up for some light marriage fraud if you’d like a Finnish citizenship.

The pro-Trump influencer, who uses the @AlphaFox78 handle on X, is an American man living in Massachusetts, CNN has learned. He agreed to speak to CNN about the posts on condition of anonymity.

I agree with what you did there, CNN.

Oh wow, thanks for the information.

Makes sense. A lot. I’ll read up on that, thanks again.

Why not both?

Your arguments suck. Get some better ones.

Shortsighted little fek, aren’t you?

It’s horrible to democracy that someone ks trying to engage with any pieces of it that might be left?

“Just leave it guys, it’s not worth it.”

Fuck off

Data is also objective or at least organised information, whereas lore is somewhat unreliable information, as it’s characterised by oral tradition. (Also if you think about the word “folklore” the connotation of factual isn’t too strong.)

I don’t trust your understanding of psychiatry to be so well versed that you could say with authority that this kid is beyond help.

He may or may not have Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), but that simple fact alone isn’t anywhere near enough to say he’s beyond help.

https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/

#Treating antisocial personality disorder

In the past, antisocial personality disorder was thought to be a lifelong disorder, but that’s not always the case and it can sometimes be managed and treated.

Evidence suggests behaviour can improve over time with therapy, even if core characteristics such as lack of empathy remain.

No, it’s definitely not normal to murder someone, but also, you definitely don’t have the authority to say he’s definitely beyond ANY help. That’s the part I find ridiculous, not the part where you think there’s something wrong with him. Of course there’s something wrong with him; he stabbed someone to death. The point is that despite murder being a horrific crime, as a society, we have moved past defining people as singularly evil for all killings.

If he did not know the kid, this isn’t even probably murder — it’s manslaughter. And if crimes of passion basically are things that you consider evidence of people being “outside ANY possible help”, then what, should we just start killing anyone who kills another person? Don’t listen to any reason, anything, just the death penalty for them, even if it was an accident? (Which this obviously wasn’t but this wasn’t premeditated either, meaning it’s not legally murder, that’s just a way for us to emphasise the horrific nature of the crime.)

Here. https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/teippasi-uhrin-painonnostotankoon-ja-upotti-jokeen-paasee-ehdonalaiseen/3336726 it’s a Finnish article, title translates as: “Taped victim to a weightlifting pole and sunk them into a river - gets free on parole.”

When he got out on parole, he moved to the building I lived in. He made friends with me (because I was the weeder in a building of grannies). By that time he was already 50 something I think. Very polite, pretty nice guy to be around, never felt threatened. Made good food. And he asked me about a pound of meth that someone stole from the storage that I too had access to (not his cabin specifically, but the room the locked shacks/cabins are in). Now even back then I had driven a taxi for years in Finland, and knew all manners of criminals. This murderer (who actually did murder as it was premeditated, unlike the kid) definitely got rehabilitated to at least some extent. Never killed anyone again, that we know of, and I don’t doubt he did. He did beat one guy up, but that guy really had it coming and I don’t believe in violence. And I do mean he really had it coming. More sort of a vigilante thing, not random violence. And totally justified. I won’t go into details about that though. I get that this paragraph is now a pretty poor argument from the reader’s point of view, but trustmebro, he was alright, and prison had definitely changed him a lot as a person. Neatest dude I ever knew, spotless apartment, kitchen, fridge. Ate healthy, exercised. Then he got a bit too much into meth again at the time I moved out of the building and then I didn’t really hear from him until he was dead, but he definitely didn’t at least get convicted of killing anyone during those last few years.

The point I’m making is most criminals can be rehabilitated to quite an extent, even if not “completely”. To the extent that they understand not to pull of shit like stabbing people, at least. The kid probably has no idea of the hell he unleashed on his own life. And once he gets to feel that for a few years, I think he’ll be humbled a bit. So I would not say that he is “definitely beyond ANY help”.

Mutually Assured Destruction between the East and the West, you say?

Sounds like something our friend @davel@davel@lemmy.ml would know about, but as usual he ran before he dirtied his nice profile too badly. There’s only so long he can avoid being directly asked if he’s pro-Russian or not. Which we all know he is.

Oh yeah I know. The first time I ever commented something to him, it took him less than two comments to start making threats with his mod status.

A very clear Russian troll. Claims to be American, but I seriously doubt it. A Putler loving American? Must have a lot of friends. :D

I seriously don’t understand why lemmy.world federates with lemmy.ml

I am not making any prescriptive claims about how the phrase burning ought to be used when describing the practice on humans

Oh, so you did go and spend a few minutes on Wiki, good, that’s a start. See you are making prescriptive claims as to how you think people have interpreted it, even when faced with people saying “no, that’s definitely not how I interpreted it”, and afterwards you even argue to them that they can’t have interpreted “branding” as a printed mark, since that’s not in it’s definition. Then someone shows you it is in the definition, and you still maintain your prescriptive claim.

You literally write it out right there.

“Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.”

Now you’ve walked back that very prescriptive statement about how you pretend people have definitely interpreted this headline from explicitly stating that EVERYONE is doing something to “imply a good majority”. But there is no “good majority”. People upvoting a comment claiming something doesn’t make that claim any more true, you understand that.

You linking “colloquialism” is peak irony as well. See if you actually understood the subject, you’d realise how silly the things you claim are. But you don’t, so you don’t realise it, so you keep doing it. :D What does colloquial language have to do with this? Please? Do make an argument, instead of your pseudointelligent babbling about “colloquial ambiguity”. This is about you having EXPLICITLY stated that EVERYONE in this thread is using the “literal and first dictionary definition”. Even being charitable to you… where is that “good majority assuming the literal and first dictionary definition”? And… which dictionary? Wouldn’t be the only one you checked when someone linked it to you, would it? Because dictionaries don’t actually always put definitions in the same order, you see. :F

You’re still pretending that everyone is applying the insane prescriptive standard you hold to this word, when native speakers most certainly don’t. I’ve also linked you a million resources showing the actual usage of the term. From movies, shows, books and news articles. Most usages are either discussing a trademark or the act of being “branded” figuratively. As in all these examples that they use here https://www.playphrase.me/#/search?q=branded&language=en and once more, those examples are not cherry-picked, unlike you claimed so many times. They’re literally randomly picked examples. That’s the very opposite of cherry-picking, ie selecting. I won’t argue that no-one uses “branding” to refer to hot irons (or cold ones, as it happens, as cryo-branding is a thing as well nowadays, better scars), but I am arguing that your bullshit statement about “Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation” being bullshit, because there’s even a clear fucking illustration of someone having marker on their face. So please show these “everyones” using this definition which means permanent physical mutilation. Go ahead. I’ll wait right here. You know, unless you want to just admit that you making a statement you knew to be bullshit?

You simply made a statement you can’t back up so you’re having to change it and move the goalposts of this debate. “Do better.”

I’ve addressed your “but other people have asserted the same bullshit I have, so the bullshit must be true!” quite a few times now.

See you’re walking back this statement you made. Now you’re trying to say “no, I didn’t say that everyone is literally using that definition, I only said that some others have pointed out the ambiguity”?

“To imply a good majority”

Oh… so… people use figures of speech when they use language, instead of meaning the literal meaning of the words they’re using? Oh geez. I wonder if there’s like any discipline which studies how language is used.

I’ve not at any point claimed that there aren’t people who may have perceived it as a literal burning iron. I’m noting that there isn’t a single one in this thread in which you claim that EVERYONE is using “the LITERAL and FIRST dictionary definition”. Literally everyone should be interpreting it as literal branding. There’s not a single comment saying so. Definitely not everyone or even a “good majority”. Only yours saying that every other comment is doing that, despite everyone being able to read the other comments, like mine, which are pointing out that that’s not how language or journalistic headlines work.

It’s not biased, but you’re rather adamant it is, yet can’t even stand behind your words, but also can’t admit that were wrong or that you can’t stand behind them.

Just like I said, you’re now trying to defend a statement where you assert that the headline is purely prescriptive, as a statement that was purely descriptive. You could avoid all this by reading wikipedia for a few minutes, but instead you keep coming back here to humiliate yourself more and more. It’s hilarious.

So you said a thing you can’t back up and now you’re ignoring it while still obsessively replying, because you can’t let it go.

It’s a really weird hill to die on, man.

You said “Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.”

You can’t now walk back that very specific statement, and you can’t defend it either, but you’re not a big enough person to admit that you said something that wasn’t right. You know that I know that you know that I know that you didn’t read the articles about linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism, because if you had even skimmed them, you’d have understood the issue, and you definitely wouldn’t have defended your own statement about demanding ‘the headline is prescriptive’ as descriptive.

It’s okay. You have to make these mistakes to learn from them.

It’s worth it to try

That’s very much my point. My point isn’t that teenagers are especially murder-y, but that they’re somewhat especially emotional.

So the other guy giving up on him before he’s even had a fully developed brain is sad to me. Perhaps he’s a violent shit who will stay a violent shit, and in that case he should remain confined, but like you said, it’s worth it to try to help him.

Like idk, everyone having a say, but maybe one person being more actively doing it, one who we could all decide on by voting?

https://youtu.be/fibDNwF8bjs

So you stand behind this comment:

Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.

?

You said it and you meant it and you’re now definitely not moving any goalposts in regards to it?

All you had to do was to actually read the link I linked to you in the first comment I made, and you would’ve got this, and you could’ve avoided this tantrum you’re having. It’s a weird hill to die on, man.

So the randomly picked samples from millions of clips that all support my point about how “brand” is used — even in the context of a scene that is even set in the wild west… is just a coincidence?

No goalposts were moved. We’re still on the same asinine topic. Can you specify which post was moved? Be specific.

So you stand behind this comment:

Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.

?

Why do you feel the need to specify “first dictionary definition” there? Couldn’t have anything to do with you not understanding that definitions in dictionaries don’t go by order of “most used”, and someone having noted to you before that comment that “printed mark” is also a definition of “brand”?

Clearly you’re not correct there. Not everyone is saying that. You’re demanding that the headline is to be interpreted literally, and only in one single way that you’ve chosen (actually cherry-picked from a list of definitions that are being actively used, as I have demonstrated several times from databases which have millions and millions of entries). Yet you also insist that this literal interpretation can’t be use for the comment in which you demand that the headline is interpreted purely prescriptively.

You see people claiming that “everyone is interpreting it in this way” doesn’t mean that it’s true that they are. You’ve failed to show anyone interpreting it like that. You’ve shown that people upvoted a comment asserting that is happening. That’s like saying you’ve proved the Earth to be Flat because you can point to a comment with upvotes claiming it’s Flat.

See you being too lazy and not spending five minutes to learn what “prescriptive” means that you’ve written these comments all day not realising how ironic it is to anyone with a basic understanding of philology. :D I’ve repeated myself about a dozen times, yet you just won’t believe you can be wrong, so you haven’t even bothered to skim the articles I’ve linked, meaning you continue this ironic garbage. Which I thank you for, because I’m having a rather empty evening otherwise, so repeating this to you until you get it is something very pleasant to do. :)

We can’t fix our society until the government stops prioritizing profit over health and education.