The point is that you have to make a good faith effort for communication to be possible, which you are not doing here. Language evolves organically, not by the dictate of a legally mandated authority.
Well if you actually want to communicate with others outside of academia, you're going to have to get used to attempting to understand people rather than constantly trying to "fix" them.
Whoops. Accidentally suppressed discussions regarding the accidental suppression of discussions. Those darned silly technical glitches are just so unpredictable.
Reformatting.
This may take a moment.
The game of Life.
In common usage, I'd argue it just means a society which is run by technology rather than people, which everyone is trying to do these days.
technocratic
I was unaware this was a feature of society unique to the political far right.
You'll get no argument from me there, and if you actually engaged earnestly instead of seeking strife by twisting one word you'd have learned that what I actually mean is that men have provided the material goods required from the system. I suspect you did know that, however, and you're just seeking an argument.
Why would we want to protect them from being exploited to enrich someone who doesn't care about them, as just another wage slave (or worse)? You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept the idea that being provided for by someone who loves you is a form of slavery.
Middle Eastern powers fight each other.
Europe at fault. /s
view more: next ›
That's exactly my point. If you come into a conversation and start declaring the definitions have to be different from how the speaker uses their own words, because people they've never even met said so, that's not a good faith effort.