669
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 21 Sep 2023
669 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2105 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The headline buries the lead. He calls all soldiers "killers." This an article everyone should read.
Buries the lede*
Wow can find anything on the internet.
It is lede.
Maybe they don't use that when publishing blogs but it's used in serious formal writing, academia and law.
Well then. Let's check the authority on diction...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bury
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lead
Which noun form of lead can be "buried," such that the sentence has prepositional phrase agreement? Talkin' 'bout physically burying something underneath backfill.
With lead, I'll concede people have fucked it up enough in modern usage to warrant entry in the dictionary, but it's a quatiary definition, 2(f)(1). Even that definition literally ends in a coda, says "go look up LEDE, you f'n goofball."
And for lede? It's not numbered, lettered, and numbered again, because it's the only thing lede means. "Bury the lede." What a sentence. Evokes the typesetter sitting over the moveable type press, laying out every character, with the most important feature of the story down, below a bunch of fill. It's how you should write. Clear, concise. Good diction. I may die on this hill a hero.
Acceptable maybe, but one is more correct. And lede is more correct because of what it evokes, the typesetter moving the lines of movable type, literally burying the lede.
It was in fact used by typesetters as jargon in the linotype era. And when it entered the lexicon more broadly, it had a very specific meaning, the same meaning which it still has.
Listen. It's fine if you want to use a less correct word. When it comes to word choice, as matters of diction as opposed to word choice as matters of style, I go to the dictionary, specifically Webster. For style, I go to CMoS, which says either is acceptable.
When you go to the dictionary for lead, this definition of "lead" is quaternary, was added in 2008, and tells you to go look at "lede." Lede is the exact correct word choice for the phrase "bury the lede."
The lede is the opening paragraph. This was not burried.
Yeah it's not news that reminding people of the Iraq war makes Republicans look bad.
I hate trump. But is he wrong? American soldiers are killers. Willingly joining wars where they are the aggressors and bomb schools and hospitals.
Not every soldier carries a gun. 70% of the US military is logistics.
I can't find the original comment but I think somebody said once that the real sign of the strength of the US military is that they can set up a Taco Bell anywhere on Earth in 72 hours.
The US military has an ice cream barge. A navy vehicle specifically for producing and distributing ice cream to their soldiers in combat arenas.
Well, it had one in WWII which is almost more impressive
Sounds way better than that shit wax chocolate in MREs.
The average teenager has no realization about that stuff. The three main motivators for military service were (and remain) escaping poverty, service tradition, and ideology. And once you've enlisted the only choice is war or prison.
I have a lot more scorn for the adults that let Bush do it then I do for kids who didn't have a chance in hell of realizing what this country does with soldiers and veterans.
Even if he is right, he owes it to people to make the POLICY ARGUMENT rather than just shit on some veterans to protect his brand.
If he came out and said "veterans make Republicans look bad because of all their bad wars" maybe we'd cut him some slack.
The overhead to support one soldier is massive. But if we want to start referring to soldiers as killers, disparage the military, and make people think badly of them, then why spend so much money on it? Or do we just want to entice people to do a job everyone will look down on, blow a bunch of money on something everyone thinks is terrible, and treat those people like shit?