Yes, "on point" is slang, but only just recently. Slag is just a little further down the scale in terms of specialized language.
The real test is how accepted a word or phrase is with the larger population using a given language (while keeping a specific meaning in mind). This gets a little muddied with the lingo used by larger groups.
For instance the phrases "weird" and "cat lady" have both been co-opted by the major political parties in this election to decide their opponents. Because they each have so many members and because their discourse is covered by media outlets the new connotations of those phrases will be more widely known outside of the group and will stop being lingo much faster than the phrases you use privately with your family or coworkers.
"On point" used to be lingo in the military once upon a time, but because of the size of the military (and aided by the internet) it has become slang and is no longer a phrase only used by a certain group.
And there's the rub. Lingo isn't inherently evil, in fact it's necessary to get through day-to-day life. You can't refer to every tool you use on the job with a short sentence explaining what it is, you say it's name and the people you work with know what you're talking about. The only time lingo must be avoided is when talking about something you're familiar with with someone who isn't to avoid putting them off or confusing them.
The real danger is people not realizing how (contrived, constantly changing) lingo can be used to manipulate them, specifically how it drives tribalism and the "us versus them" mentality. This is especially important given how political movements and other groups behave online, and how prevalent this tactic has become over the past decade.
Lingo is a powerful social tool. Once you know to look for it, you see it everywhere.
Some lingo is always necessary for jobs to communicate complex ideas quickly. Everyone has terms and phrases used in their profession that are exclusive to it, as well as some that are exclusive to their workplace. People outside of their job don't know the lingo, those inside do. In this way lingo is a double-edged sword: it eases communication, but creates a social barrier between those in the know and everyone else.
In an increasing number of places this isolating side effect has been used by certain groups as the motivation for them to contrive lingo. For a long time this was largely relegated to cults and other fringe groups that wanted to shore up the feeling of togetherness of the people within and keep them away from outsiders.
The big change was when groups found that by constantly changing the lingo they could induce two other effects: the exclusion of outsiders and exerting control over existing insiders. The MBA/business types are a prime example of this. For people in or seeking to be a part of the group knowing the latest buzzwords is a must, and not knowing them or using outdated ones opens them up to being ostracized. People who are "in" must constantly stay up to date, thus staying attentive to the trends of the group. At the same time people with a casual interest or interaction are actively dissuaded by how often unfamiliar words are used by members of the group.
This sort of weaponized use of lingo is much more widespread these days. Once you see it in this case you can find it in just about every flavor of modern political group and online forum. If you find a group that seems to always be changing its buzzwords, buyer beware.
I'm really, really hoping a lot of folks see that comment. Online communities are rife with intelligence agents actively trying to sway online discourse.
There's a term in intelligence work for people who fight or support a cause they don't fully understand: useful idiots. Anyone reading this, take a hard look at the facts of any situation. Do everything you can to cut down to the actual truth wherever possible. Make up your own mind. Don't be a useful idiot.
Hezbollah operates with pagers and walkie talkies for OPSEC reasons. Israel has been intercepting them and placing small explosives in them for God only knows how long.
This week they set a fucking ton of them off, injuring a couple thousand people and killing 8, with quite a few bystanders getting hit. Just today there was a funeral for a Hezbollah member who got killed and all the walkie talkies at the event blew up.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Lemmy is an anus of a platform filled with lunatics.
Given that you think Putin is promising people immortality, I doubt it.
I'm not entirely certain you're thinking straight. You're coming off a little unhinged.
Age and maturity are not the same thing.
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.
And that's an overwhelmingly good thing. The nut jobs and extremists are looking for an excuse to start shit but (as you correctly stated) lack the resolve to finish shit. They want to do a little political violence to feel enfranchised and like they have some control, but they're not ready to give up everything for a cause. This makes them particularly dangerous.
The real bulwark against government fuckery is the people you don't hear about: normal folks who happen to have guns. It would take actual, serious grievances against large swathes of the population to make them do something. Because that much larger (and more ideologically diverse) cohort isn't champing at the but for a fight they haven't lied to themselves about being able to maintain a normal life and therefore wouldn't start one lightly. That's pretty boring, so you only hear about the weirdos.
It is, but teenagers and the emotionally stunted fall into it so they can feel superior.
It's basically a diet conspiracy theory. It lets adherents think they're special and have figured something out that regular people didn't. That's a lot more comforting than realizing they're just regular people because they aren't mature enough to see obscurity as a good thing.
I had no idea Rodney Dangerfield was playing such a key role in the South China Sea.
No, only in elementary schools.
What they're getting confused about is that a lot of architecture firms that design prisons also design high schools because - shockingly - both of those institutions are designed around moving large numbers of people to different areas throughout the day.
My high school was designed by one of those firms and it wasn't weird. You could see it in the little details, though. There were exactly two places in any of the hallways where you couldn't see a clock, so nobody could say they ran late because they didn't know what time it was. The architects just decided where they would place cameras in a prison and swapped them out for digital clocks.
Ok, you misunderstood me and flew right off the handle. I said "look for issues with the prosecutors". I'm laying the blame on prosecutors for not getting a case past a grand jury.
You just bit my head off to agree with me.
The fact that he spent more money is extremely relevant because that's what he was seeking. It would have been totally reasonable for him to pay for home repairs on the existing foundation and structure.
While the $5,000 the city gave him certainly wouldn't accomplish that, he took it too far. He destroyed all remaining value left in the structure, built a new (and more expensive) house on his land, and expects the public to pay for that upgrade. He had a right to compensation for repairs, not to have the taxpayer fund the construction of his dream home.
There are a couple of big, huge caveats to that particular case. They're stated explicitly in the last two paragraphs of the article you linked:
-
The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure of the current status, but as of the time that article was written things hadn't been settled.
-
While the money offered by the city was undeniably too little, the guy also chose to knock down the house and rebuild a bigger, nicer house than he had. A civil claimant is trying to get back what they lost, they can't expect to get a leg up.