I got sloppy when it came time to choose the order in which to swap the letters; I mistakenly thought a specific letter only occurred once in the puzzle when it actually occurred twice.
OK, I’ll bite; do we need a concept for a “dual they” or a “ternary they”.
If so, then fine “singular they” deserves to be called out too. If not, then treating “singular they” as a special case just gives bigots space to claim that it’s some sort of deviation from the norm which then gives them cover for falsely claiming that usage is incorrect.
I’m not saying you can’t use “they” when referring to a single person; I’m saying that when you do that you haven’t deviated from the simple usage in any way shape or form.
I’m saying there’s no “singular they” because using “they” in that context is just the same as any other usage of “they”. It isn’t any sort of exception to the base rules and so doesn’t require any special treatment.
My hot take: there’s no such thing as “singular they” because you don’t need a special case for using plural pronouns with a single person; the basic usage already allows that. The plural pronouns refer to a group of people of any size. That includes a group of size 1.
A group of only one person is still a group of people.
That’s why it has always been correct to refer to a single person using the plural pronouns; you’re not directly referring to the person but rather to the group consisting of just that one person.
The reason this confuses people isn’t because the usage is incorrect but rather because what they were taught is incorrect.
People are taught that plural pronouns only refer to more than one person and that has always been wrong.
To see why that’s wrong, consider what happens when the size of the group is neither exactly one or more than one. For example if the group is actually empty or if you don’t know how many people are in it.
In both those cases you need to use the plural pronoun.
If the plural pronouns are a valid choice for both a group of size zero and a group of size two, then it would be ridiculous to argue that they are not a valid choice for a group of size one.
That's not good enough because the vast majority of their wealth will never be spent. It will just be used to accumulate more wealth.
That's why all of these billionaires have real tax rates in the low single digits (or less). Even with opulent spending habits they keep most of their gains unrealized, so they are never taxed.
That means a 2% wealth tax on billionaires would not make them lose a single penny. Instead, it would just slow down the rate at which their wealth grows (while still growing exponentially).
If you assume 7% annual rate of return on that $230 billion, then 3 months "salary" would be a little over $4 billion.
That being said, as others have pointed out, the "3 months salary" guideline is just propaganda from DeBeers and no one in their right mind should ever spend that type of money on a piece of jewelry.
That’s true but the same issue applies to both the article (which doesn’t use the term “statutory rape”), and the editor (who likely doesn’t have any legal expertise).
They’re just reporting what the prosecutors accused the person of and if the prosecutor didn’t use the term “statutory rape” then the reporters probably shouldn’t either.
They don’t want to get the reporting wrong if they aren’t experts on the subject and even more so the don’t want to expose themselves to lawsuits if they do get the reporting wrong.
I really don’t think the reporters are trying to minimize the heinousness of the crime (at least not in this case). It looks more like they are just being conservative in what they state.
… although, I guess any pronunciation will be wrong because the actual name was “Πτολεμαίος”, so if you wanted a correct transliteration you would have to use “Ptolemaious”
Regardless, Joey is still closer to the correct pronunciation.
#waffle1271 4/5 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟩⭐🟩⭐🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟩⭐🟩⭐🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 🔥 streak: 195 🏆 #wafflemaster wafflegame.netI got sloppy when it came time to choose the order in which to swap the letters; I mistakenly thought a specific letter only occurred once in the puzzle when it actually occurred twice.