Sure they can write laws making it illegal to claim the king of Thailand is a doddering old fool anywhere in the world. Good for them.

They have no legal right to enforce it on me, though. If I visit their country, of course, I will be subject to their laws. But they can’t apply it to me until then.

They can write whatever they like, but in practical terms, they can only enforce their laws inside their borders.

No European law applies outside Europe. That’s kind of the nature of laws.

I suspect that the reaction to the edited video spooked them. They were expecting to get away with that, and when it was so easily called pot as a fraud, they had to reconsider.

A run of market sales would drive down the price.

And if you can’t afford to rent, then got being able to buy is not a significant difference.

And what, leave the apartments empty? Have them earn zero money, rather than some money?

Context is as important to language as syntax.

Context is important to the message, yes. But if I need the context to understand a particular word, I would understand the message just as well without that word.

Yea. Not helpful.

I’m aware of the existence of contranyms. None of the examples you gave apply, as they just have different meanings, or the same leaving with different connotations.

Right, that’s “speaking figuratively.” There are rules for that.

But a word that means the opposite of what it means is not a useful word.

I’d hate to find a box in my lab marked “inflammable.”

Indeed it is so.

Nevertheless, assholes.

If the employers are using computers to read my resume, why shouldn’t I used a computer to write it?

Assholes to the lot of them.

Also, that whole thing is nonsense of the highest order.

Because we don’t want them doing surge pricing.

Is there some reason we want brands to join the conversation?

More or less. No bonus points for me, I guess.

You need some kind of cue to keep in step. If you can see the other guys feet, that helps, but often tinted you can’t. The sound of yourself matching helps, but without some occasional cadence, or other governing factor, the speed of the match tends to change in a collective sort of way. My BMT platoon would get faster as we marched, unless the DI shouted at us occasionally.

Realistically, by way of being the political equivalent of a fleet-in-being.

Mostly, though, by way of ducking up anyone who looks like challenging our putative superiority.

Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.

I’ll think about it.

using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.

What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?

• “Woman” seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.

• I don’t want to say “natural” women, or “real” women, as even someone as thick as me can see that’s insulting.

• It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.

What do you think world be more appropriate?

it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.

But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.

Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)

I can’t think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I’m never happy with the answer “because this one is right, and that one is wrong.” There needs to be reasons why.