409 pts · January 27, 2017
Sure, by origin. But our constructions are not; for example, deforestation in the Amazon basin is not a natural process.
Tap on the image first to view it full-screen, then zoom.
Aye, I always like the response I get when I say that our legal drinking age is five.
See title
1) That wasn’t me, dude. 2) Negro is not ‘incorrect’, you’ll just get beaten up for saying it. Your ‘counter example’ exemplifies nothing.
I’m sorry, at this point you’ve completely lost me. What are you talking about? I never said anything even remotely connected to that.
But we’re - *closes eyes and rubs bridge of nose* - we’re talking about English, man. This is a discussion about the English usage of words.
Amerindian isn’t a misnomer, and ‘caucasian’ is arguable. Race is social, not biological, so it exists purely as people perceive it.
The term is Amerindian, to distinguish from South Asian peoples, but yes. I’m not saying that it should be that way, I’m saying that it is.
You’re missing the point: ‘correct’ language is defined by usage, not by etymology, so the use of the word is not incorrect.
Although this is not historically accurate, we must respect it as one meaning of ‘Caucasian’, because that’s how language works. 4/4
However, it is still used informally in the US as a term for people of European descent. 3/?
The term fell out of fashion as anthropologists and biologists moved on to a different understanding of human genealogy without races. 2/?
Not quite. ‘Caucasoid’ was a racial typology in use from the 1780s to the mid-20th century, alongside ‘Mongoloid’ and ‘Negroid’. 1/?
You been to England, mate? It’s cheaper to take a bloody aeroplane.
… that’s his point.
Gnosticism is not the opposite of agnosticism. Gnosticism is it’s own school of theological thought. Don’t give me this shit.
Live there, or travelling?
Why are there two cursors in that picture
hi-igh* fucking autocorrect
‘Cause I got hi-ugh
British Isles, my man
r/woosh
Correction: three centuries
(2/2)
During the medieval period. The British Raj began two centuries after the first evidence of cricket, in 1858. Look it up.
Nope, cricket is purely English. Earliest evidence of cricket is in the mid 16th century, and generally believed to have developed (1/?)
Bob out with your knob out
Woo! (Oh and cricket)
Also, left-handers often write with their forearms flat on the table perpendicular to the paper, which is a bitch with binder rings 3/3
Sure, by origin. But our constructions are not; for example, deforestation in the Amazon basin is not a natural process.
Tap on the image first to view it full-screen, then zoom.
Aye, I always like the response I get when I say that our legal drinking age is five.
See title
1) That wasn’t me, dude. 2) Negro is not ‘incorrect’, you’ll just get beaten up for saying it. Your ‘counter example’ exemplifies nothing.
I’m sorry, at this point you’ve completely lost me. What are you talking about? I never said anything even remotely connected to that.
But we’re - *closes eyes and rubs bridge of nose* - we’re talking about English, man. This is a discussion about the English usage of words.
Amerindian isn’t a misnomer, and ‘caucasian’ is arguable. Race is social, not biological, so it exists purely as people perceive it.
The term is Amerindian, to distinguish from South Asian peoples, but yes. I’m not saying that it should be that way, I’m saying that it is.
You’re missing the point: ‘correct’ language is defined by usage, not by etymology, so the use of the word is not incorrect.
Although this is not historically accurate, we must respect it as one meaning of ‘Caucasian’, because that’s how language works. 4/4
However, it is still used informally in the US as a term for people of European descent. 3/?
The term fell out of fashion as anthropologists and biologists moved on to a different understanding of human genealogy without races. 2/?
Not quite. ‘Caucasoid’ was a racial typology in use from the 1780s to the mid-20th century, alongside ‘Mongoloid’ and ‘Negroid’. 1/?
You been to England, mate? It’s cheaper to take a bloody aeroplane.
… that’s his point.
Gnosticism is not the opposite of agnosticism. Gnosticism is it’s own school of theological thought. Don’t give me this shit.
Live there, or travelling?
Why are there two cursors in that picture
hi-igh* fucking autocorrect
‘Cause I got hi-ugh
British Isles, my man
r/woosh
Correction: three centuries
(2/2)
During the medieval period. The British Raj began two centuries after the first evidence of cricket, in 1858. Look it up.
Nope, cricket is purely English. Earliest evidence of cricket is in the mid 16th century, and generally believed to have developed (1/?)
Bob out with your knob out
Woo! (Oh and cricket)
Also, left-handers often write with their forearms flat on the table perpendicular to the paper, which is a bitch with binder rings 3/3