Some people get really snarky about word breakdowns for some reason. See it quite often.
Some people get really snarky about word breakdowns for some reason. See it quite often.
I mean to have an actual citation from 1893 that provides a written out definition is huge. These things are around for a good bit before making their way into documentation.
Reading through the talk, many people say coal and then provide links that come far after 1893.
Well it’s possible the coal miners choose red afterwards in solidarity with farmers.
Wiki says:
A citation from 1893 provides a definition as “poorer inhabitants of the rural districts … men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks”.[12] … By 1900, “rednecks” was in common use to designate the political factions inside the Democratic Party comprising poor white farmers in the South.[14]
Coal miners
The term “redneck” in the early 20th century was occasionally used in reference to American coal miner union members who wore red bandanas for solidarity.
Looks like sunburn predates coal miners.
They fight differently, we like to punch.
It’s slippery.
I’m gonna guess the same reason we have big knuckles/fists and men have facial hair. Fighting.
That’s a surprisingly small watershed for such large lakes. Does it rain a lot or is it just accumulated over a very long time?
Well you see, it introduces efficiencies because there will competition and incentives for CEOs to seek innovative, private industry knowledge and ok I’m done /s.
is responsible public health messaging.
No it’s not. That message is exactly what leads to what you fear: people leaving the room with the exact opposite takeaway. That message is “do not get divorced ever, bad bad bad. Anyone that gets divorced is bad bad bad.” Etc, etc, etc (a whollle lot of other implications that I won’t repeat). You reallllly don’t have to go far to hear people have that takeaway. And it’s all based on based on collapsing all the spectrums of data into a simple data point. On the other hand, elaborating on the details will lead to an actual understanding of what’s healthy and when and for who. You have this completely and utterly backwards. Quite frankly I think your way of thinking (of hiding information and not discussing it) is incredibly dangerous to people and perpetuates horrible thinking in society. You have this completely backwards, what you fear (a lot of people will leave that room with the exact opposite take away) actually happens with what you advocate for. I think I’m out.
*Ok last line because I really don’t want to keep replying and I’ll make it as clear as I can. It’s pretty clear in Project 2025 that the GOP wants to get rid of no fault divorce. That thinking is propped up by this over simplistic thinking of “it’s better for the kids”, “divorce is bad”, and many, many other insinuations and things like that. This over simplistic thinking leads to incredibly bad ideas and support. Ok I’m out.
Ok I have no idea what overall point you’re trying to make in this conversation as a whole, so I think this will be my last reply.
If it is so simplified that it misses the point entirely and to the point that it gives the wrong impression of what’s going on (to the point that I question if the person even understands it themselves) then it’s infuriating to listen to them talk. Which people eat up, and then regurgitate, which is the wrong impression of what’s going on. It’s very easy to give some misleading narrative which people eat up. Most of this is not so complicated that it can’t be explained.
No fucking shit. But he can’t even break it down into a simple one dimensional analysis. He’s still treating it as a single data point and presenting it as such.
The entire point of communicating information is to communicate the details and nuance. Good presenters can do it, bad presenters can’t (or don’t).
He’s doing a shit job communicating to the point that I question if he understands it. It’s easy: Dysfunction is a scale. You have families that are fine, and of course the data coming from those families say that kids that come from parents that stay together do better. Then you have abuse like you said. The problem is he’s treating the entire scale as a single data point “parents stay together, kids do better.”
Also infuriating is a certain psychologist saying “kids from parents that stay together do better”, completely missing the point that there was dysfunction which led to divorce.
It’s infuriating to listen to people talk about lack of divorce (in certain cultures, times, etc) thinking it means a successful marriage.
Jewish people were living in Poland and Russia in 1939 because it was occupied, had no rules, and had no law?
Had to look up Blyat.
Why were there so many Jewish people living in Poland and Russia?
If you have a machine with no current operating system on it that will not boot from a CD-ROM, you must use this method. Setup disks are a set of four disks that form a minimal installation of Windows 2000
I wasn’t aware there were CD-ROMs that you couldn’t boot from.
Looks like use for farmers predates coal miners’ bandanas.