589
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
589 points (97.7% liked)
politics
31633 readers
2187 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The entire party is literally rotten, the attempts to exclude oneself from it are laughable.
Can you point to one of these - how you say? - "attempts to exclude oneself from the party"?
You are misquoting the comment above yours. The title of this post is an example of a member trying to exclude himself from the rottenness of the party.
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to be pedantic. You are incorrect.
I would strongly argue that the comma in the above sentence should be a semicolon; I will treat it as one.
The subject is "party," a noun. "The entire" describes the subject. The verb is "is," and the predicate is "literally rotten." The predicate here is a descriptor of the subject.
In the second part, we need to determine what "it" refers to. "It" is a pronoun. Pronouns are shorthand for nouns. There are two nouns in the entire comment: "party" and "oneself." Context tells us that "it" cannot be a reference to "oneself," because it is absurd to "attempt to exclude oneself from oneself," and even if that was the meaning, it would be a complete non-sequitur from the first part of the comment.
That leaves one other noun for "it" to refer to: "party."
Furthermore, "it" cannot be referring to "rotten," because "rotten" is an adjective. "Rottenness" is a noun, but that's not the word here. If @iforgotmyinstance had intended to refer to the "rotten[ness]," they would have said something like: "The rottenness of the party is overwhelming; the attempts to exclude oneself from it are laughable."
Now let me get into your comment.
In the first sentence, you refer to the "comment above [mine]." As explained above, I am not "misquoting" or misunderstanding it.
In the second sentence, you refer to "the title of this post," in a way that suggests that the post title and @iforgotmyinstance's comment are necessarily referring to the same specific subject: ("party" or "rotten[ness]"). They are not, and are not obliged to. They do refer to the same general subject: the rottenness of the Republican party. It is reasonable to refer to the "party" in a comment about it's "rotten[ness]."
The post title reads:
The title (of the post and the article) is quoting Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who was briefly Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. One interpretation of that quote is that McCarthy is "trying to exclude himself from the rottenness of the party." I would argue that the simple statement is an extremely weak attempt, but I would otherwise agree.
That was a whole lot of text to say nothing. At the end you didn't even have a counterpoint, you just said it was a weak attempt. Do you really have this much time on your hands to not make a point?
I stopped reading their reply once he brought up the comma, like oh brother ain’t no one got time for that!