the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)
I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.
ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.
the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!
With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said.
"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get
"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.
"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."
Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations.
"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.
Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.
This a million times
Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level.
This is basic economic fact.
A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity.
And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…
And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.
Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs).
But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.
We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living
"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."
"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."
If you’re at a pool, and there’s some kids running, and the life guard shouts “No running!” do you interject with “EXCUSE ME, NOT ALL OF US WERE RUNNING.”
If you’re in class, and a classmate is eating, and your professor addresses his students, “There’s no eating in the classroom,” do you scream out “EXCUSE ME, BUT WE’RE NOT ALL EATING.”
The lifeguard and your professor are well aware who is doing what. There is no reason for them to modify their sentences because they realize you’re aware of who is doing what too. They have enough faith in your intelligence that if they say “no running” or “no eating” you will recognize that, if you are not already doing these things, you are in the clear.
When someone begins a post, “why do men do x,” they are not saying that every single man in this world wakes up and makes it a point to do x for the day, every day of his life. Nobody ever, ever thinks that. They exist around men and observe men on a regular enough basis to know that obviously not all men do x.
No. They are saying that they have witnessed men doing x enough that they would like to point it out. They are saying that in the whole group of men, there are men who do x, and they think it’s worth noting.
So there’s no reason to go “NOT ALL MEN” because everyone already knows not all men, and that’s why nobody said “all men.” They just said men. If you’re not the man it applies to, move the fuck on, just like you’d keep walking at a swimming pool or keep not eating in class.
If the words “some men” are keeping you from recognizing a post with very valid points, you’re the problem.