The Grammar of Politics Thread
Now that I think about it, the "with your bullshit" part is actually always there when you tell a person to **** off. It's implied. No one ever gets told to **** off unless they just said some bullshit.
But the subject wouldn't be "you"-- "you" is the direct object. The speaker (in this case me), would be the subject. Since it's an imperative (e.g. a command), think of it as "[strike]I want you to[/strike] **** off [strike]with your bullshit
Well this brings me back to the horrors of grammar classes taught by Sister Martin. But the subject of an imperative sentence is always you. 😀
This may sound strange, but every single command has the same subject! Yikes! How is that even possible?
Well, since commands are always speaking to someone or something (you've got to address them if you're going to ask them to do something), the subject is always the word you.
You may have noticed that the word "you" is not even in a command. Because of this, the subject is actually called you understood, and it is written like this: (you)
This means that the subject is the word you, but since you is not written or spoken in the sentence, it is simply understood and is written in parentheses.
irregardless, "could care less" actually literally means that the person doesnt care at all.
Ok what grammar topics do you guys want to discuss and who has journal access?
I've been sans laptop, hence on phone for a while so can't really type much in depth. I'll just chip in from the periphery for now.
Re "couldn't care less": you *could* care less if and only if you care at all, hence if you couldn't care less, you don't care at all. Absolutely no ambiguity there.
Yeah that means that you're caring so much that it's impossible to care less. "Could care less" also means you still care, just that you could care some lesser amount. Both are flawed.
LOL, no. The first (couldn't care less) means precisely what it is intended to, while the second (could care less) never does. It's basically saying "I care", effectively the opposite of the intent.
Also, this:
irregardless, "could care less" actually literally means that the person doesnt care at all.
Well played, sir.
LOL, no. The first (couldn't care less) means precisely what it is intended to, while the second (could care less) never does. It's basically saying "I care", effectively the opposite of the intent.
Do you have a formal proof based in logic and semantics you're prepared to present to the rest of us or is this just your supposition?
I really hope for your sake that you're trolling.
No Rickroll had it right. "Couldn't care less" or it's converse "couldn't care more" could be anywhere on the "caring continuum". It means "this is my level of caring and it's not changing", if you want to take the actual meaning of the words.
Victor is correct in that "could care less" is what people actually use to mean that they don't care.
No Rickroll had it right. "Couldn't care less" or it's converse "couldn't care more" could be anywhere on the "caring continuum". It means "this is my level of caring and it's not changing", if you want to take the actual meaning of the words.
Victor is correct in that "could care less" is what people actually use to mean that they don't care.
Not covering yourself in glory here, my man.
Rickroll is wrong or joking - at any nonzero point on the continuum, you could, but you may or may not. That's the whole point. That's why it's "couldn't care less" not "could care less but don't want to".
Victor, based in his attempt to squeeze as many mistakes as possible into his post, was definitely joking.
JFC, I have to explain this to a sentient adult? You need to wake up, sleepy. I'm sure your new Colombian buddies have just the medicament for that.
Not covering yourself in glory here, my man.
Rickroll is wrong or joking - you could, but you don't. That's the whole point.
Victor, based in his attempt to squeeze as many mistakes as possible into his post, was definitely joking.
JFC, I have to explain this to a sentient adult? You need to wake up, sleepy. I'm sure your new Colombian buddies have just the medicament for that.
Victor was absolutely correct. I looked at the numbers. The ratio of "could care less" to "couldn't care less"-- in an actual sample of language use was 1226:113, just a tad less than 11:1
I can't believe I am going to say this, but I'm on team Luckbox. It's become idiomatic in American* English. Similar to "literally" now can be used instead of "figuratively".
*I have no idea what the King's English phrase would be. Probably something like "I say, that's a sticky pudding for a plot hound. Pip, pip, cheerio."
Please explain how it's impossible that "couldn't care less" doesn't mean that you care so much that it would be impossible to care less.
Use whatever means you want but preferably logic and semantics.
It certainly "can be used" if you don't mind marking yourself as ignorant to anyone who understands logic.
You can explain it to yourself using logic and the example below.
If I say to you "it is impossible for me to have fewer apples than I currently have", how many apples do I have?"
Now change it to "possible".
Please explain how it's impossible that "couldn't care less" doesn't mean that you care so much that it would be impossible to care less.
Use whatever means you want but preferably logic and semantics.
The bolded clause here makes no sense at all, so no phrase can meaningfully represent that idea.
I'm pretty sure you understand why others here agree with me. If you are really trying to make a serious argument, the burden is on you to explain how the bolded phrase makes sense.
It could be that you have zeros apples, or it could mean that your apples are locked away somewhere that you don't currently have access to.
Or they could be magic apples that I got from the same place Jack got his beans. If you still don't get it, I can't help you. Maybe someone else can help you count it out on your appendages or something. Hope you don't need to go to 21.
It could be that you have zeros apples, or it could mean that your apples are locked away somewhere that you don't currently have access to.
If you don't have current access to your apples, you may not actually have any, they may have been stolen or eaten by rats, so you certainly could have fewer apples than you believe you do.
If you don't have current access to your apples, you may not actually have any, they may have been stolen or eaten by rats, so you certainly could have fewer apples than you believe you do.
What if you have your apples monitored with CCTV and you know exactly how many apples you have you just can't access them? Switch the apples to gold bars if you have trouble thinking that this is a realistic scenario.
What if you have your apples monitored with CCTV and you know exactly how many apples you have you just can't access them? Switch the apples to gold bars if you have trouble thinking that this is a realistic scenario.
You still could have fewer gold bars. For example, you could give one to me.
The phrase "couldn't care less" doesn't refer to you a person being incorrect about how much they currently care. It refers to how much they could theoretically in the future.
For example, I currently care about the safety of the dog who lives in my household. However, I could care less about it (in the future), if she dies.
I currently do not care at all about the safety of the angry dog down the street who always growls at us when we walk by. Even if that dog died I could not care less about its safety, as my level of care is already at minimum.
Going back to your apples but instead lets use bitcoin since it's in the news.
Let's say you have 10 BTC currently valued at around 667K usd, you have a passphrase wallet and the code words are in a time lock safe that you won't be able to access for another 5 years (pretend like you set it up that way to safeguard your bitcoin in case you got drunk and wanted to cash it in for strippers and blow).
Someone asks you if you could have less bitcoin. What is the response?
