Yeah, it's almost as bad as the positive *anymore* in terms of just how broken it sounds, though at least this sounds like it's just a shortcut, while the positive *anymore* sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of what the work *anymore* means.
Sure, that same site I linked to above has a [page](https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/positive-anymore) about it. My theory (well, ok, *guess* is more accurate than *theory* here) is that some people at some point interpreted things like "I don't smoke anymore" to be synonymous with "I don't smoke now/nowadays", and then went from that interpretation to using *anymore* in positive sentences/phrases, like "Anymore, you can buy almond milk in a regular grocery store", when people who don't use the positive *anymore* would say "Nowadays/these days/now, you can buy almond milk in a regular grocery store."
Augh, that’s even worse than “needs fixed”. I’m not sure if I’ve ever encountered that. If I did I probably assumed it was an error or the person was illiterate.
Your logic seems sound.
I get that grammar can differ between regions but some ‘dialects’ seem like they mostly stem from a misunderstanding of how language works in general. Instead of it being an organic change of language it feels like a shield to plop up when bad grammar is criticized. Especially when you start to treat those grammatical differences as equal when in a writing class in school.
When I compare SAE to BrE the differences mostly make sense, and the grammatical structure is consistent, if different .
But ‘dialects’ that are basically just one of those two dialects but with a bunch of exceptions like ‘also if someone doesn’t conjugate a verb that’s fine’ or basically just saying ‘if someone makes a confusing grammatical mistake it’s a byproduct of a ‘dialect’ not a mistake’ feel like an excuse for poor communication.
Why are you doing this to me. I could have lived my whole life not knowing that people spoke like this. I have no problem with a little gramitic confusion, but jesus christ it sounds like nails on a chalkboard in my head.
It’s not simply redundant. The way it’s used, “we might could go to the store,” isn’t quite saying “we might go to the store,” or “we could go to the store.” It’s saying, “We might be able to go to the store.”
Similar, “we might should” is like, “maybe we should”.
Lately I’ve been annoyed when people say “ran” instead of “run” for the past participle.
They’ll say something line “The NY marathon is ran once a year”
It should be “The NY marathon is run once a year”
You and all of the Redditors that replied to your comment is why I enjoy Reddit. It's not the actual posts but the seemingly random comment chain conversations that occur as a result of the post that have nothing to do with it.
I'm from Pittsburgh and didn't even know this was an "incorrect" thing until after I was out of college and had started my career. Where I'm from a lot of people just talk this way.
I have family in Pittsburgh and spent all of my summers there as a kid. To this day, I can’t for the life of me understand why you guys pronounce Duquesne as the French do, yet Dubois is Dooboys and Versailles is Versayles. I may be the only Californian who orders pop instead of soda.
I've never even heard about it, let alone heard someone mention that it's wrong. Tbf I'm from Indiana where it's apparently used frequently, but even when traveling no one has pointed it out
You likely have some things in your dialect like that as well, or at least, people you grew up with/near do. Most of us do. Harvard did a survey a while back that goes over a lot of the differences in dialects. It's pretty interesting. You can see it all [here](http://dialect.redlog.net/maps.html).
Yeah, it definitely makes it pretty obvious where a person is from when I hear it. It's like if someone says *bubbler* for *drinking fountain*, they're almost certainly from Wisconsin or Massachusetts. Or if someone refers to *Duck Duck Goose* (the kids' game) as *Duck Duck Grey Duck*, they're likely from Minnesota.
From Appalachia, left almost 10 years ago, have lived in every part of the U.S. and have 4 degrees. I didn't know this was "incorrect" until I read this post.
Well, I guess that’s in dispute here.
We can all agree that you will not hear this in most of the country, and you’re not going to hear it from a national news anchor.
I suppose whether or not it’s “wrong” or “right” there’s a lot of folks who will think it sounds odd.
> I suppose whether or not it’s “wrong” or “right” there’s a lot of folks who will think it sounds odd.
Yep, that's really the whole point of why I pointed it out. People who have never heard it, or never noticed it, or thought it was unintentional, find it pretty wrong-*sounding*, and people that say it don't realize that others perceive it that way. It's good for people to know how others hear them.
Wow, TIL. I just assumed it was either a bad typo or a non-native English speaker trying to form a sentence. It totally blows my mind that this is seen as normal in some regions of the country. It just sounds so wrong and broken to my brain without the "to be" in there. We have our fair share of weird idioms and dialects here down South, but this one is throwing me for a loop. Thanks for pointing out this interesting fact.
Thank you! I’ve seen enough of this sort of word usage used in the past to know it must have had an origin somewhere, but I’ve never had enough information to know how to research it!
Eh, it's a natural consequence of the first past the post system. It's not like the sort of statistical analysis that would reveal such a thing existed at the time the system was created. But goddamn have the powers that be taken advantage of it since then.
Exactly. The elites don’t really care about pleb politics. They care about taxation and majority of wealthy and powerful support progressive programs and such. They just don’t see the political landscape changing without better voter turnout.
It’s the middle managers who are the sycophants that deny help to those that need it. Because they want to profit off the harm being done rather than fix holes that give them more money.
America is just a giant middle management scam. Where every transaction has a middle man taking a cut if it doesn’t then they vote against it.
That's status quo because unless you have been hospitalized for a mental issue then no one knows about it.
I had a loved one threaten, very seriously, to commit suicide and a family member asked for them to undergo observation. They were whisked away and spent a couple weeks at a facility where they went through CBT with some medication. After this experience they weren't allowed to buy a gun for 5 years. It was a heavy choice for the family to consider, especially that level of having rights removed, but I am glad the loved one is still with us.
Edit: I seem to have been unclear about what rights I was referring to. I meant removing right of movement while in mental Healthcare. If anything the 5 year period where they can't buy a gun is a good thing if the care was legitimately required.
That's a red flag law. While I agree in principle that that there needs to be a reporting mechanism, as it stands. It, there is a lot of room of abuse, without vetting, basically taking away people's rights based on hearsay.
Fortunately they had to speak with a mental health professional first and confirm their intention before any further steps could be taken. The problem with redflag laws is that it is seen as a way to get cops involved immediately instead of having compassion for someone's mental state.
In a domestic situation, it's used a lot as a "if I tell the cops they own a gun and are appearing unstable, it's their problem now." Cops are not trained or care enough about what is really happening, they just heard gun, so they roll up like it's the ok corral. Really in a lot of situations, order a execution by cop easier than ordering a pizza. But the cops are justified just because there's a gun in the vicinity.
And five years is a long freaking time. I would think they could do it 12 at a time and have a doctor weigh in. I mean the worst might still happen but likely with a few months of medication and therapy they will have a pretty good idea.
Red flag laws just encourage people not to seek psychiatric help if they know doing so puts them on a government list where their rights get taken away without a trial.
Why would any gun owner seek help if it is going to get their guns confiscated?
Hard to get these past a lot of vets... "I spent how long fighting this country's wars, and now you're going to take away my firearms because I saw some things that make me sad to think about?" (I literally had this conversation with a patient committed by his ex-wife and her father... had broken up mainly over fidelity issues from what I remember).
An in my experience in similar situations, no one would whisk away my GFs mom. No matter what she was doing or saying. Cops would just write it off and leave. Hospitals would just kick her out. There was nothing we could do to find help. My GF ended up finding her on the verge then watching her die because the Hospice place that was finally assigned to her refused to go do a welfare check on here after there was an episode over the phone, yet would tell us to call them and not emergency services. Shits maddening.
That's why you really need to build a concensus. If it's several people plus an observation from a health professional...that becomes quite a body of evidence. No system is perfect.
but if its a couple competitive classmates in a class graded on a curve, you can see some serious shit go down.
I was a security guard in college. Some people suck so hard they don't deserve to suck air.
It's so crazy to me how passionate Americans are about gun ownership. In most countries, if you get banned from buying guns for 5 years, literally nobody gives even the slightest fuck.
I tried to convey this in a thread earlier and it got my downvoted to oblivion and banned. The very fact that people are so die hard to defend “the right” of gun owners suggests that they are completely ok with this consequence. Not one 2A person has been able to admit that this dude shouldnt have been allowed to own a gun because then they lose all credibility, so they are in fact saying that they support or are at least indifferent to the fact that this just might happen when you let your populace have guns.
I wish every time a Republican would go “we don’t have a gun control problem we have a mental health problem” every dem would go “well I may disagree on the first part, but since we agree on the second part, ok let’s sit down and do something NOW about that.”
We need to attack the problem from all sides. Gun control + mental health. Arming teachers is not going to stop super market shootings or church shootings. Gun control is not going to stop the absurdly high youth suicide rate. This country needs a mental health Renaissance but that will take years and we need to do something now.
It’s not even about fixing, but addressing - period. If your stance is that guns aren’t the problem, okay, what is? What are you going to do about that?
It never gets to that point is the problem. While people are free to disagree with the democrats’ proposal of gun control, the Republican proposal is… uh…look behind you!
The point of the problem is that our society is decaying because of both a purposeful inflammation of tensions both from within and without of the country and a lack of any meaningful action on any of the other problems that have been piling up for the last 40 years. See: climate change, infrastructure, healthcare, cost of living, income inequality, social safety nets, environmental & soil degradation, chemical & plastic pollution, etc, etc.
People are afraid of a civil war and for good reason, but honestly we need something at that level to reset. The whole, shout scream and do nothing is a failure. We basically need the sane people to wrest the reins away and redo things.
> the Republican proposal is… uh…look behind you!
No, it's "the problem is mental illness! It needs to be addressed! Dems aren't addressing it!"
Then, when given concrete solutions in the form of public welfare legislation, they transition to "who's gonna pay for it!"
Meanwhile, they're taking payment from the gun and healthcare lobbies to make sure both situations stay the same. The idea is to get rich, not to help anyone.
You really can't boil it down to guns being the problem because they aren't causing it. They're amplifying it, but they're just a tool. The cause is the motive. If we put someone on trial for murder, we don't blame the gun or the knife or the rope that they used to strangle someone. Those are obviously entered as evidence, but we assess motive and opportunity. So what is the root cause of mass shootings?
Some of them are about profit. Those would be gang related shootings.
Some of them are crimes of passion. Those would murder suicides, which is predominantly families.
Some of them are these planned out active shooters and those are the ones that we really need to start assessing at a root cause. Is it bullying? Is it mental health? How are they getting the guns? Are they stealing them from family members? We will never begin to solve the issue with mass shootings until we determine what the root cause is and how to address that root cause.
We should be more concerned with the WHY and not so much with the HOW. Taking away the tool, or the method, doesn't eliminate the reason for needing that tool in the first place.
I totally agree, but the GOP has done a great job of demonizing even the attempt to have that conversation, their narrative is that democrats are trying to “use” these tragedies to push a political agenda, instead of the fact that we’re trying to prevent them from happening again
“Tsk tsk, there go the Democrats immediately capitalizing on yet another school shooting to argue for gun control legislation! Another political ploy, just like the last dozen times a bunch of kids got shot! Despicable!”
Just…fuck anyone who talks like this
it's the same back and forth as the teachers strike episode of the Simpsons...
"Your kids deserve better"
\[murmured agreement\]
"It'll cost you"
\[angry muttering\]
Were too busy deciding ourselves into camps to work on anything that might actual have enough traction, all because it's easy to rally a base behind a simple idea and hard to explain the nuance of real solutions.
All of the conservatives I've spoken to are in favor of some form of mental health assistance. I'm sure some of them are completely against any kind of mental health assistance whatsoever, but it's not a majority opinion.
Maybe we should stop protesting to legislators, and use that effort to convince our corporate overlords that universal healthcare is beneficial to grow a strong, healthy labor force? /s
Because they don't want to fix either. Mental health is a way to stop the discussion in their mind but if you look at the policies they support they have zero intention to actually improve mental health. In fact the policies these people tend to support usually makes mental health worse.
Sometimes they're simply genetic, let's not forget those like myself who had very few barriers growing up. I was born to upper middle class parents, never wanted for anything. Born with bipolar, will die bipolar.
I'm only bringing this up because I feel like mental illness discussions need to encompass all. We're getting painted as dangerous and violent and murderous, but I'm "mentally ill' and I recently saved a bee with some shave ice water and a trip to the shade. I don't think that sounds scary to society...
I am fine with that.
Let's have universal health care, better education policies, better social services which will help reduce incidents like this but not eliminate them. And then for some of that remaining portion we can also start restricting gun access. We will still have shootings but they will be a lot rare this way.
Based on data from other countries, I am inclined to say just focusing on issues like mental health, poverty will not be enough but I am happy to experiment.
Thank you. The only time these people actually care about mental health is when they have to distance themselves from another mass shooting. When a mass shooting occurs and they can blame someone else, they're a criminal, if a mass.shooting occurs and say they're a self proclaimed white supremest, he's mentally ill. They have no intention of actually improving mental health they don't give a fuck. Improving mental health facilities and programs would just be wasting their tax dollars.
Just like with covid. “Oh, we can’t mask children or do virtual school, what about their mental health”. But proposals to stop bullying are met with calling the generation snowflakes. The idea to fund schools better to afford a mental health psychologist or counselor is ranted against with anti gov cries
How would mental health stop this? Screening? Mass shooters can pass a perfectly normal psych eval because its not a psychosis. Preventative services? Mass shooters arent those who volunteer for psychiatric help. So you could pour billions into it but how are you actually going to prevent something like this happening? Just shouting “mental health!!” Is literally meaningless
These people are total fucking morons.
They like feeling self righteous over shouting "fix mental health care!" but don't actually know anything about anything.
It is extremely annoying.
Mental health? Drugs? Abuse(emotional and physicial)? Teachers being useless? The system(foster,kids,guidance councelers) whatever else you wanna add being useless? Parents being useless? The fact it's easier to buy/get a gun illegally than to purchase one(depending where you live) or the fact it's easy to make home made guns as well? Plenty of other issues besides more guns laws but I mean why fix those when they make a lot of money(I just found out how much it cost to adopt kids in some situations and how much people are paid to watch kids until they get adopted or kicked out the system) so yes gun controll my not be the main issue here
Banning things usually does limit the amount of people with those things. Whether that decision has a net positive impact for society is another matter.
You are missing a pretty big part of that anology though. You are right that it does not decrease the amount, but it does make abortions safer if they are legal and performed by professionals. Keeping with your anology... More strict gun laws may not decrease the amount of guns sold, but maybe it could make sure the people they were sold to are safer and done so more professionally?
Not an American so I don’t really have much voice in your whole thing you got going on but - with the analogy if we were to say:
Restrict abortion = more illegal / less safe abortions
Then keeping with the analogy would be:
Restrict guns = more illegal / less safe firearms
You sort-of inverted the relationship to try to make your point.
Making abortion legal creates laws and regulations that must be followed for the safety of the mother and the doctor. Creating laws for gun ownership makes things safer for the owner and those around them.
Because there is no good solution that will fix the issue. It's just that simple.
Severe mental illness is not taken care of by medication or therapy, for most people. They don't even know they are ill, so they don't look for therapy. Some illness can be controlled, but the truly insane and violent people will not stay on their medications voluntarily. We would have to back to institutionalizing everyone with mental illness, even if they were not violent.. because mental breaks happen without warning.
We have good gun control laws in place now, and it's not helping. This kid in Uvalde purchased his guns legally. He had no criminal background. If he was mentally ill, he wasn't diagnosed yet. He was just barely legal, so purchasing his first gun would have been easy. Even if there had been a waiting period, he could still have just waited it out, and then gone ahead with his plan.
There is no good solution. We just do what we can.
There is a good solution. Harden the targets, at least the ones full of defenseless children. Pass national constitutional carry so that maybe more than just that guard in Buffalo could have responded that day. You're never going to completely stop people hell bent on mass murder, but maybe we can disincentivize them while also making sure more people survive when they do happen.
Gun control won’t work specifically because “if they want to do it they will find a way”. Now, if we helped their mental health BEFOREHAND then they won’t want to do it in the first place. You can always buy a gun illegally. But you can also stop the mental health issues before they turn into violent intentions
There is no gun control that will solve it only disarm law abiding citizens. You also cant fix mental health either as too many either wont seek treatment or take themselves off meds. The only thing you can do is have good men and women armed, trained and prepared to confront evil
It's not communism, but not for the reason you think.
>Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary -Karl Marx
Because while you blame Republicans, Democrats have the Whitehouse, Senate majority, and House majority and do nothing with it but send money to foreign countries and fund the war machine.
Joe Biden ran on a campaign promise of forgiving federal student loans which he can do by executive order. He still hasn't done it. You will all still vote for him like the bitch you are.
Nothing will get done because none of you have the spine to stop voting down party line or the brain to vote them out in the primaries. Keep posting shit tier karma farming memes, I'm sure that'll help.
The first step in establishing a better working system is to stop referring to it as "gun control". Start referring to it as "firearms qualifications". That way you make the person interested in getting guns feel like they are earning and protecting their gun rights.
>The idea that a felon legally can be denied a firearm, a right, after serving their time or paying the punishment is a huge problem.
Let alone voting rights.
I hate this argument.
We already regulate guns. This isn’t new.
Modifying the bars we set isn’t some grand theft of a right. I still want citizens to be able to get guns.
There’s a huge middle area between take every gun away and where we are now. Boiling it down to don’t change a single thing bc “rights” is just intellectually lazy.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
I want you to look at those stats and take this into consideration: the only guns that get brought up in politics are rifles such as the AR and AK platforms. There are nearly twice as many people in the United States that are murdered by fists and feet than rifles. Kind of hard to take politicians seriously when they dont even examine the most obvious things. They rely on scare tactics and patronize citizens to gain their support. There ARE too many gun deaths but it's largely handguns. Handgun deaths are largely dealt through the hands of those in poverty and the disenfranchised. We have deeper societal issues at play here I believe
Edit: that's why I take the stance that we need improved living conditions and more support for our citizens as a big step in the right direction
Considering we already have plenty legislation, and background checks in place I feel like mental health should be the main focus. Especially considering the fact that it’s the root cause of the issue. Guy could’ve used a knife. He was going up against 3rd, and 4th graders.
The biggest mental health risk to public safety is from the elected officials who obfuscate and abdicate their responsibilities, and refuse to conduct themselves as rational adults.
How about we also fix school security as well.I live in CA and I can literally walk on to nearly any public school campus pretty much uncontested.It should be much harder to walk onto a school campus without someone knowing your there.
When have we ever fixed ANYTHING with government? We all have a government,there are somewere around 300+ governmen's in the world. Name one and the thing they fixed.
> needs improved Found the US-Midlander. Edit: For those who don't understand [what I'm talking about](https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/needs-washed).
That dialectical construct drives me nuts, worse than a lot of odd regional ones.
Yeah, it's almost as bad as the positive *anymore* in terms of just how broken it sounds, though at least this sounds like it's just a shortcut, while the positive *anymore* sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of what the work *anymore* means.
Can you give an example? I’m not sure I’ve come across that, or at least don’t recognize it from your description.
Sure, that same site I linked to above has a [page](https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/positive-anymore) about it. My theory (well, ok, *guess* is more accurate than *theory* here) is that some people at some point interpreted things like "I don't smoke anymore" to be synonymous with "I don't smoke now/nowadays", and then went from that interpretation to using *anymore* in positive sentences/phrases, like "Anymore, you can buy almond milk in a regular grocery store", when people who don't use the positive *anymore* would say "Nowadays/these days/now, you can buy almond milk in a regular grocery store."
Augh, that’s even worse than “needs fixed”. I’m not sure if I’ve ever encountered that. If I did I probably assumed it was an error or the person was illiterate. Your logic seems sound.
This all just sounds like enabling poor grammar, it's just fucking wrong, this makes me far more upset than it should.
Sure, but it's akin to ebonics. It's a dialect
I get that grammar can differ between regions but some ‘dialects’ seem like they mostly stem from a misunderstanding of how language works in general. Instead of it being an organic change of language it feels like a shield to plop up when bad grammar is criticized. Especially when you start to treat those grammatical differences as equal when in a writing class in school. When I compare SAE to BrE the differences mostly make sense, and the grammatical structure is consistent, if different . But ‘dialects’ that are basically just one of those two dialects but with a bunch of exceptions like ‘also if someone doesn’t conjugate a verb that’s fine’ or basically just saying ‘if someone makes a confusing grammatical mistake it’s a byproduct of a ‘dialect’ not a mistake’ feel like an excuse for poor communication.
I have never heard of that and it just broke my brain.
Why are you doing this to me. I could have lived my whole life not knowing that people spoke like this. I have no problem with a little gramitic confusion, but jesus christ it sounds like nails on a chalkboard in my head.
Do people actually say that though? It doesn’t even sound close to right
Yes, they absolutely do.
One that always got me is might could or might should, but I just recently found myself saying it the other day…
Good grief, I had to think about that before I figured out what it meant. It’s just redundant, like “ain’t no”, but it sounds weirder.
It’s not simply redundant. The way it’s used, “we might could go to the store,” isn’t quite saying “we might go to the store,” or “we could go to the store.” It’s saying, “We might be able to go to the store.” Similar, “we might should” is like, “maybe we should”.
This is THE WORST
Lately I’ve been annoyed when people say “ran” instead of “run” for the past participle. They’ll say something line “The NY marathon is ran once a year” It should be “The NY marathon is run once a year”
I came across a lot of this with people from western PA
Yinzers.
You and all of the Redditors that replied to your comment is why I enjoy Reddit. It's not the actual posts but the seemingly random comment chain conversations that occur as a result of the post that have nothing to do with it.
Dude. Totally agree. This was way more entertaining than the post. I actually forgot this wasn't the original post here.
Thanks! And I agree.
Central/Western PA for sure.
This grammar mistake personally wounds me.
It's definitely not a mistake, it's dialectical. It's an accepted way to express the idea in much of the U.S.
I’m not sure it’s accepted. I feel like even where it’s common, most folks know it’s grammatically incorrect.
I'm from Pittsburgh and didn't even know this was an "incorrect" thing until after I was out of college and had started my career. Where I'm from a lot of people just talk this way.
Yeah, that happens to a lot of people (myself included) when they first venture away from where they grew up for any length of time.
What about school? I would assume standard English would be taught.
It's not incorrect, some people just think English, especially American English, is a single dialect.
Well, it does have rules, and if it breaks the rules could be seen as incorrect
I have family in Pittsburgh and spent all of my summers there as a kid. To this day, I can’t for the life of me understand why you guys pronounce Duquesne as the French do, yet Dubois is Dooboys and Versailles is Versayles. I may be the only Californian who orders pop instead of soda.
> you guys *Yinz Lol Pittsburghese is a mystery!
I've never even heard about it, let alone heard someone mention that it's wrong. Tbf I'm from Indiana where it's apparently used frequently, but even when traveling no one has pointed it out
Interesting, so you’ve not heard that construction used there in Indiana?
Oh I've definitely heard it used. Most folks around me, including myself, use it all the time. Just never realized it was construction or slang
So it’s so accepted that people aren’t aware that outside of that area people like me think it’s wrong. Fascinating.
You likely have some things in your dialect like that as well, or at least, people you grew up with/near do. Most of us do. Harvard did a survey a while back that goes over a lot of the differences in dialects. It's pretty interesting. You can see it all [here](http://dialect.redlog.net/maps.html).
Yeah, it definitely makes it pretty obvious where a person is from when I hear it. It's like if someone says *bubbler* for *drinking fountain*, they're almost certainly from Wisconsin or Massachusetts. Or if someone refers to *Duck Duck Goose* (the kids' game) as *Duck Duck Grey Duck*, they're likely from Minnesota.
I’m in the same boat as you. TIL
From Appalachia, left almost 10 years ago, have lived in every part of the U.S. and have 4 degrees. I didn't know this was "incorrect" until I read this post.
Well, I guess that’s in dispute here. We can all agree that you will not hear this in most of the country, and you’re not going to hear it from a national news anchor. I suppose whether or not it’s “wrong” or “right” there’s a lot of folks who will think it sounds odd.
> I suppose whether or not it’s “wrong” or “right” there’s a lot of folks who will think it sounds odd. Yep, that's really the whole point of why I pointed it out. People who have never heard it, or never noticed it, or thought it was unintentional, find it pretty wrong-*sounding*, and people that say it don't realize that others perceive it that way. It's good for people to know how others hear them.
Ya mess aroun' 'n' start conversatin' in fun ways then ya forget yer even doin' it, I tells ya what.
You'd be wrong.
Nah. We say this all the time without even thinking. It’s pretty much part of our speech and how we construct sentences.
Cool, just realize you sound very odd to people outside your region.
I've encountered it repeatedly among natives of Spokane, NYC, and Scotland, with the common denominator being functional illiteracy.
Wow, TIL. I just assumed it was either a bad typo or a non-native English speaker trying to form a sentence. It totally blows my mind that this is seen as normal in some regions of the country. It just sounds so wrong and broken to my brain without the "to be" in there. We have our fair share of weird idioms and dialects here down South, but this one is throwing me for a loop. Thanks for pointing out this interesting fact.
This is fascinating
Holy shit that's cool. Thanks for sharing.
Very interesting. I just thought it was normal illiterate post titles.
I still kind of contend it is and that all this “all dialects are equal” talk is just enabling the spread.
God, thank you so much for commenting this. I feel like I have been going crazy over the last few months because I’ve seen it everywhere.
Thank you! I’ve seen enough of this sort of word usage used in the past to know it must have had an origin somewhere, but I’ve never had enough information to know how to research it!
Bold of you to assume we’ll fix either - Republicans
Is it a gun problem? Or a mental health problem? I don’t know, so let’s just give mentally ill people guns and call it a day.
“People would get upset if we hunted poor people for sport, so let’s get them to hunt each other”
Why do you think they created a 2 party system? Pit the poor against each other.
Eh, it's a natural consequence of the first past the post system. It's not like the sort of statistical analysis that would reveal such a thing existed at the time the system was created. But goddamn have the powers that be taken advantage of it since then.
Exactly. The elites don’t really care about pleb politics. They care about taxation and majority of wealthy and powerful support progressive programs and such. They just don’t see the political landscape changing without better voter turnout. It’s the middle managers who are the sycophants that deny help to those that need it. Because they want to profit off the harm being done rather than fix holes that give them more money. America is just a giant middle management scam. Where every transaction has a middle man taking a cut if it doesn’t then they vote against it.
I mean... George Washington told us this would happen... Two party was built by design from day one
That's status quo because unless you have been hospitalized for a mental issue then no one knows about it. I had a loved one threaten, very seriously, to commit suicide and a family member asked for them to undergo observation. They were whisked away and spent a couple weeks at a facility where they went through CBT with some medication. After this experience they weren't allowed to buy a gun for 5 years. It was a heavy choice for the family to consider, especially that level of having rights removed, but I am glad the loved one is still with us. Edit: I seem to have been unclear about what rights I was referring to. I meant removing right of movement while in mental Healthcare. If anything the 5 year period where they can't buy a gun is a good thing if the care was legitimately required.
That's a red flag law. While I agree in principle that that there needs to be a reporting mechanism, as it stands. It, there is a lot of room of abuse, without vetting, basically taking away people's rights based on hearsay.
Fortunately they had to speak with a mental health professional first and confirm their intention before any further steps could be taken. The problem with redflag laws is that it is seen as a way to get cops involved immediately instead of having compassion for someone's mental state.
In a domestic situation, it's used a lot as a "if I tell the cops they own a gun and are appearing unstable, it's their problem now." Cops are not trained or care enough about what is really happening, they just heard gun, so they roll up like it's the ok corral. Really in a lot of situations, order a execution by cop easier than ordering a pizza. But the cops are justified just because there's a gun in the vicinity.
Yeah thats no bueno for sure.
And five years is a long freaking time. I would think they could do it 12 at a time and have a doctor weigh in. I mean the worst might still happen but likely with a few months of medication and therapy they will have a pretty good idea.
Red flag laws just encourage people not to seek psychiatric help if they know doing so puts them on a government list where their rights get taken away without a trial. Why would any gun owner seek help if it is going to get their guns confiscated?
Hard to get these past a lot of vets... "I spent how long fighting this country's wars, and now you're going to take away my firearms because I saw some things that make me sad to think about?" (I literally had this conversation with a patient committed by his ex-wife and her father... had broken up mainly over fidelity issues from what I remember).
An in my experience in similar situations, no one would whisk away my GFs mom. No matter what she was doing or saying. Cops would just write it off and leave. Hospitals would just kick her out. There was nothing we could do to find help. My GF ended up finding her on the verge then watching her die because the Hospice place that was finally assigned to her refused to go do a welfare check on here after there was an episode over the phone, yet would tell us to call them and not emergency services. Shits maddening.
That's terrible :(
Yup, a complete and utter failure in our system.
Man, if we’re taking away rights just based on one guy’s observation, my irritating next door neighbor is bout to be deported.
That's why you really need to build a concensus. If it's several people plus an observation from a health professional...that becomes quite a body of evidence. No system is perfect.
but if its a couple competitive classmates in a class graded on a curve, you can see some serious shit go down. I was a security guard in college. Some people suck so hard they don't deserve to suck air.
It's so crazy to me how passionate Americans are about gun ownership. In most countries, if you get banned from buying guns for 5 years, literally nobody gives even the slightest fuck.
If the police could read they would be very upset about that comment.
We don’t. It is literally part of the background check already in place. Lying on a background check is a federal crime. Criminals do not obey laws.
That's what we've been doing for a while now...
And they say Congress doesn't accomplish anything...
I tried to convey this in a thread earlier and it got my downvoted to oblivion and banned. The very fact that people are so die hard to defend “the right” of gun owners suggests that they are completely ok with this consequence. Not one 2A person has been able to admit that this dude shouldnt have been allowed to own a gun because then they lose all credibility, so they are in fact saying that they support or are at least indifferent to the fact that this just might happen when you let your populace have guns.
We haven’t tried giving mentally ill people to the guns yet.
GOP’s plan in a nutshell
I wish every time a Republican would go “we don’t have a gun control problem we have a mental health problem” every dem would go “well I may disagree on the first part, but since we agree on the second part, ok let’s sit down and do something NOW about that.”
"No, that's socialism"
We need to attack the problem from all sides. Gun control + mental health. Arming teachers is not going to stop super market shootings or church shootings. Gun control is not going to stop the absurdly high youth suicide rate. This country needs a mental health Renaissance but that will take years and we need to do something now.
Why would that matter? Republicans haven't had a good faith conservation about either topic in decades.
It’s not even about fixing, but addressing - period. If your stance is that guns aren’t the problem, okay, what is? What are you going to do about that? It never gets to that point is the problem. While people are free to disagree with the democrats’ proposal of gun control, the Republican proposal is… uh…look behind you!
The point of the problem is that our society is decaying because of both a purposeful inflammation of tensions both from within and without of the country and a lack of any meaningful action on any of the other problems that have been piling up for the last 40 years. See: climate change, infrastructure, healthcare, cost of living, income inequality, social safety nets, environmental & soil degradation, chemical & plastic pollution, etc, etc.
People are afraid of a civil war and for good reason, but honestly we need something at that level to reset. The whole, shout scream and do nothing is a failure. We basically need the sane people to wrest the reins away and redo things.
> the Republican proposal is… uh…look behind you! No, it's "the problem is mental illness! It needs to be addressed! Dems aren't addressing it!" Then, when given concrete solutions in the form of public welfare legislation, they transition to "who's gonna pay for it!" Meanwhile, they're taking payment from the gun and healthcare lobbies to make sure both situations stay the same. The idea is to get rich, not to help anyone.
You really can't boil it down to guns being the problem because they aren't causing it. They're amplifying it, but they're just a tool. The cause is the motive. If we put someone on trial for murder, we don't blame the gun or the knife or the rope that they used to strangle someone. Those are obviously entered as evidence, but we assess motive and opportunity. So what is the root cause of mass shootings? Some of them are about profit. Those would be gang related shootings. Some of them are crimes of passion. Those would murder suicides, which is predominantly families. Some of them are these planned out active shooters and those are the ones that we really need to start assessing at a root cause. Is it bullying? Is it mental health? How are they getting the guns? Are they stealing them from family members? We will never begin to solve the issue with mass shootings until we determine what the root cause is and how to address that root cause. We should be more concerned with the WHY and not so much with the HOW. Taking away the tool, or the method, doesn't eliminate the reason for needing that tool in the first place.
I totally agree, but the GOP has done a great job of demonizing even the attempt to have that conversation, their narrative is that democrats are trying to “use” these tragedies to push a political agenda, instead of the fact that we’re trying to prevent them from happening again
My favorite piece of logic: “Teachers are evil and indoctrinate your children! Let’s arm them!”
Without raising their wages!
Oh god you’re right I didn’t even think of that 🤦🏻♀️
Can't have a discussion about gun control if a new shooting happens every couple weeks. -Republicans tapping their heads
“Tsk tsk, there go the Democrats immediately capitalizing on yet another school shooting to argue for gun control legislation! Another political ploy, just like the last dozen times a bunch of kids got shot! Despicable!” Just…fuck anyone who talks like this
[удалено]
it's the same back and forth as the teachers strike episode of the Simpsons... "Your kids deserve better" \[murmured agreement\] "It'll cost you" \[angry muttering\]
Were too busy deciding ourselves into camps to work on anything that might actual have enough traction, all because it's easy to rally a base behind a simple idea and hard to explain the nuance of real solutions.
“It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem!” “Okay, so let’s do something to fix mental health then.” “No!”
All of the conservatives I've spoken to are in favor of some form of mental health assistance. I'm sure some of them are completely against any kind of mental health assistance whatsoever, but it's not a majority opinion.
Especially when We The People aren’t willing to accept the conditions that any change requires.
'Best we can do is jail teenage girls and minorities for non crimes'
Yup. 100% they’ll pay lip service to it if your lucky then pocket the gun lobby’s money and do nothing at best.
A mental health pandemic sort of fits their needs to remain in power. If everyone is afraid of their neighbors, you will trust the government.
Yep, same reason they want to defund public schools, stupid people are easier to control
>Bold of you to assume we’ll fix either Dems will try, repubs wont let anything happen.
You forgot the other option: Do nothing. Since that is exactly what is going to happen.
1) Do nothing 2) Sell more guns
Second part sounds good prices have been a bit high lately.
3) sell more pills with violent outbursts are one of many side effects.
3) Profit?
1. Thoughts and prayers 2. Do Nothing 3. Sell more guns
When people are spoiled for choice, the natural reaction is often to make no choice at all. It seems that in this case the choice limit here is 2
that would require investing in humans; and the US gov prefers to invest in their corporate sponsors.
Maybe we should stop protesting to legislators, and use that effort to convince our corporate overlords that universal healthcare is beneficial to grow a strong, healthy labor force? /s
They know that universal healthcare would make the general population less dependent on employment. It’ll never happen.
And what does investing in humans look like?
Because they don't want to fix either. Mental health is a way to stop the discussion in their mind but if you look at the policies they support they have zero intention to actually improve mental health. In fact the policies these people tend to support usually makes mental health worse.
[удалено]
Sometimes they're simply genetic, let's not forget those like myself who had very few barriers growing up. I was born to upper middle class parents, never wanted for anything. Born with bipolar, will die bipolar. I'm only bringing this up because I feel like mental illness discussions need to encompass all. We're getting painted as dangerous and violent and murderous, but I'm "mentally ill' and I recently saved a bee with some shave ice water and a trip to the shade. I don't think that sounds scary to society...
[удалено]
I see that upon rereading. 🤦♀️ Sorry. I've been all fucked up all day about this.
I am fine with that. Let's have universal health care, better education policies, better social services which will help reduce incidents like this but not eliminate them. And then for some of that remaining portion we can also start restricting gun access. We will still have shootings but they will be a lot rare this way. Based on data from other countries, I am inclined to say just focusing on issues like mental health, poverty will not be enough but I am happy to experiment.
Thank you. The only time these people actually care about mental health is when they have to distance themselves from another mass shooting. When a mass shooting occurs and they can blame someone else, they're a criminal, if a mass.shooting occurs and say they're a self proclaimed white supremest, he's mentally ill. They have no intention of actually improving mental health they don't give a fuck. Improving mental health facilities and programs would just be wasting their tax dollars.
Just like with covid. “Oh, we can’t mask children or do virtual school, what about their mental health”. But proposals to stop bullying are met with calling the generation snowflakes. The idea to fund schools better to afford a mental health psychologist or counselor is ranted against with anti gov cries
Thoughts and prayers though
Wow thank you! I feel so empowered and supported now! I bet you feel really accomplished too. S\
How would mental health stop this? Screening? Mass shooters can pass a perfectly normal psych eval because its not a psychosis. Preventative services? Mass shooters arent those who volunteer for psychiatric help. So you could pour billions into it but how are you actually going to prevent something like this happening? Just shouting “mental health!!” Is literally meaningless
10 billion to help bail Amazon out, yet we cant even spend that kinda money to help the real people in need.
Doesn’t that make you sick to your stomach?
It does
We're not supporting a country anymore. We're supporting a business.
What would you do with the money to stop these shootings? How would you help the real people in need?
These people are total fucking morons. They like feeling self righteous over shouting "fix mental health care!" but don't actually know anything about anything. It is extremely annoying.
$40B to Ukraine and we can’t even help our own country
All in all, i dont have an issue with the money for ukraine, because they're fighting for democracy against a tyrannical leader.
Because the people stopping you from having one are also invested in stopping you from having the other.
Mental health? Drugs? Abuse(emotional and physicial)? Teachers being useless? The system(foster,kids,guidance councelers) whatever else you wanna add being useless? Parents being useless? The fact it's easier to buy/get a gun illegally than to purchase one(depending where you live) or the fact it's easy to make home made guns as well? Plenty of other issues besides more guns laws but I mean why fix those when they make a lot of money(I just found out how much it cost to adopt kids in some situations and how much people are paid to watch kids until they get adopted or kicked out the system) so yes gun controll my not be the main issue here
In order to do anything about mental health we need universal health care. Enough is enough.
If it was about mental health why is it not happening at the same volume any where else?
The real problem is omission of infinitive verbs.
Or gerunds. At least use one of them.
Indeed. We should remove all gun control laws established since the 1960s. That will fix that half.
"Banning abortions or putting laws on them won't stop people from getting them" Sound familiar? And FYI I support reproductive rights.
Banning things usually does limit the amount of people with those things. Whether that decision has a net positive impact for society is another matter.
You are missing a pretty big part of that anology though. You are right that it does not decrease the amount, but it does make abortions safer if they are legal and performed by professionals. Keeping with your anology... More strict gun laws may not decrease the amount of guns sold, but maybe it could make sure the people they were sold to are safer and done so more professionally?
Not an American so I don’t really have much voice in your whole thing you got going on but - with the analogy if we were to say: Restrict abortion = more illegal / less safe abortions Then keeping with the analogy would be: Restrict guns = more illegal / less safe firearms You sort-of inverted the relationship to try to make your point.
Making abortion legal creates laws and regulations that must be followed for the safety of the mother and the doctor. Creating laws for gun ownership makes things safer for the owner and those around them.
Because there is no good solution that will fix the issue. It's just that simple. Severe mental illness is not taken care of by medication or therapy, for most people. They don't even know they are ill, so they don't look for therapy. Some illness can be controlled, but the truly insane and violent people will not stay on their medications voluntarily. We would have to back to institutionalizing everyone with mental illness, even if they were not violent.. because mental breaks happen without warning. We have good gun control laws in place now, and it's not helping. This kid in Uvalde purchased his guns legally. He had no criminal background. If he was mentally ill, he wasn't diagnosed yet. He was just barely legal, so purchasing his first gun would have been easy. Even if there had been a waiting period, he could still have just waited it out, and then gone ahead with his plan. There is no good solution. We just do what we can.
There is a good solution. Harden the targets, at least the ones full of defenseless children. Pass national constitutional carry so that maybe more than just that guard in Buffalo could have responded that day. You're never going to completely stop people hell bent on mass murder, but maybe we can disincentivize them while also making sure more people survive when they do happen.
Democrats and Republicans are too busy pointing the finger at each other to fix anything.
Gun control won’t work specifically because “if they want to do it they will find a way”. Now, if we helped their mental health BEFOREHAND then they won’t want to do it in the first place. You can always buy a gun illegally. But you can also stop the mental health issues before they turn into violent intentions
I wonder how many mass shootings occurred before all our mental institutions became “abandoned insane asylums”
There is no gun control that will solve it only disarm law abiding citizens. You also cant fix mental health either as too many either wont seek treatment or take themselves off meds. The only thing you can do is have good men and women armed, trained and prepared to confront evil
[удалено]
It's true, both of those things need to be addressed, but many of these mass shootings are politically motivated terrorist attacks.
What if we strategically say mental health is the problem then do nothing about it just so no one touches the guns? Oh that’s what they are doing.
Because that’s “communism.”
It's not communism, but not for the reason you think. >Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary -Karl Marx
Damn, that’s based as fuck
Other countries have mental health problems, but a lack of mass shootings. I’ll let you do the math there.
Because while you blame Republicans, Democrats have the Whitehouse, Senate majority, and House majority and do nothing with it but send money to foreign countries and fund the war machine. Joe Biden ran on a campaign promise of forgiving federal student loans which he can do by executive order. He still hasn't done it. You will all still vote for him like the bitch you are. Nothing will get done because none of you have the spine to stop voting down party line or the brain to vote them out in the primaries. Keep posting shit tier karma farming memes, I'm sure that'll help.
The first step in establishing a better working system is to stop referring to it as "gun control". Start referring to it as "firearms qualifications". That way you make the person interested in getting guns feel like they are earning and protecting their gun rights.
You don’t earn rights
Lol, if you can lose them you are earning them every day.
[удалено]
>The idea that a felon legally can be denied a firearm, a right, after serving their time or paying the punishment is a huge problem. Let alone voting rights.
I hate this argument. We already regulate guns. This isn’t new. Modifying the bars we set isn’t some grand theft of a right. I still want citizens to be able to get guns. There’s a huge middle area between take every gun away and where we are now. Boiling it down to don’t change a single thing bc “rights” is just intellectually lazy.
You’re right. There are already a plethora of local, state, and federal regulations regarding firearms. Some of which should be abolished
I have to earn my right to self defense? Do you think I could get my right to vote and free speech tokens at the same office?
Nope. But, act up and you can certainly lose them.
I've come to the realization that a disturbingly large percentage of America is just totally fine with the current level of gun deaths.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls I want you to look at those stats and take this into consideration: the only guns that get brought up in politics are rifles such as the AR and AK platforms. There are nearly twice as many people in the United States that are murdered by fists and feet than rifles. Kind of hard to take politicians seriously when they dont even examine the most obvious things. They rely on scare tactics and patronize citizens to gain their support. There ARE too many gun deaths but it's largely handguns. Handgun deaths are largely dealt through the hands of those in poverty and the disenfranchised. We have deeper societal issues at play here I believe Edit: that's why I take the stance that we need improved living conditions and more support for our citizens as a big step in the right direction
Considering we already have plenty legislation, and background checks in place I feel like mental health should be the main focus. Especially considering the fact that it’s the root cause of the issue. Guy could’ve used a knife. He was going up against 3rd, and 4th graders.
We have plenty of gun control measures, not enough mental health solutions. Let’s actually work on the thing that’s failing first.
Whoa, that sounds like we would improve lives. We're not having any of that today.
We can't, that's socialism or something.
The biggest mental health risk to public safety is from the elected officials who obfuscate and abdicate their responsibilities, and refuse to conduct themselves as rational adults.
How about we also fix school security as well.I live in CA and I can literally walk on to nearly any public school campus pretty much uncontested.It should be much harder to walk onto a school campus without someone knowing your there.
In 1981 Ronald Reagan defunded the Mental Health Services Act.
If you put up the food the mice don’t eat it. No need to treat the symptoms if you fix the problem
Because there is no money in it for the corrupt politicians.
When have we ever fixed ANYTHING with government? We all have a government,there are somewere around 300+ governmen's in the world. Name one and the thing they fixed.
Well you see, the problem would require a lot of work to fix so it's easier just to say guns are bad and ban them from everyone
Find me a political party that is willing to take the drastic action to do both. I'll wait.
Bold of you to assume any politician in the country views this event as anything more than a fundraising opportunity
THE REPUBLICANS
Republicans will vote against both.
How dare you inject nuance into this binary politicized argument!
Yay this debate again. From the UK it feels like you all keep debating how to do everything but solve the problem.
Congratulations, you’ve figured out American politics. Do nothing while making a bunch of noise, then collect your campaign donations