The vast majority of the 100 most common words in English are still inherited Germanic words.

English shares a common Germanic ancestor with German. German and English are sisters.

Even just 29 all getting run over is a ways less likely than a single car causing a chain reaction and causing the same amount of damage.

This is such a ridiculous claim that it’s not even worth responding to.

Show me. I doubt that’s more likely than sending an innocent rider to jail.

From your other responses in this thread, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you think that.

You completely ignore my 108-word argument to the contrary.

You’ve been ignoring everything I’ve said this entire conversation, which I’ve already pointed out multiple times in this thread.

It’s clear that your biases aren’t going to allow you to see clearly in this situation, so I think I’m going to cut my losses here and disengage.

Have a good one, and be sure to stop at red lights.

Nobody said they couldn’t. The comment I was responding to said that studies show that it’s safer for bikes to not come to a full stop at red lights, and I correctly pointed out that that’s completely false.

Edit: you yourself wrote a comment saying basically the exact same thing I did - why the heck are you trying to nitpick me here?

The problem with your argument here is that you’re ignoring the fact that those 100 squishy cyclists running red lights can all get hit by cars, potentially resulting in way more than broken bones, and possibly sending the innocent drivers to jail for vehicular manslaughter.

For the third time, a large number of cyclists running red lights is demonstrably more dangerous than a small number of motorists running red lights, and the court summons is more than warranted.

Edit: Also, holy shit, if you’re right, and the number of cyclists who run red lights compared to motorists is actually 36:1, then YES send them all to court. Jesus!

Your source says that bikes should still come to a full stop at red lights though?

To repeat what I said in my original comment, the sheer number of cyclists running red lights poses a serious threat to motorists. It’s inevitable that some of those idiots running the lights are going to get hit, and the motorists are going to have to deal with the consequences of the cyclists’ stupidity.

Since cyclists running red lights is a widespread, deeply-ingrained problem in North America, and one that’s much more frequent than cars running red lights, the harsher punishment is completely justified.

To break it down a simply as possible for you: yes, one car running a red light poses more danger than one cyclist running a red light, but one hundred cyclists running a red light poses an order of magnitude more danger than one car running a red light.

And for that reason, I fully support sending the cyclists to court, and only giving the motorists a ticket.

They could, but if it’s anything like the sheer epidemic of bikes running red lights here, I absolutely think it makes sense to send a message to curb the dangerous behavior.

Then again, if it’s actually just an excuse to harass and possibly detain immigrants as mentioned in another comment, then as usual the cops can go fuck themselves.

deleted by creator

Good. As someone who is all for biking and public transit infrastructure, the number of idiot cyclists running red lights in my town is entirely unacceptable, and far outnumbers the cars I see running lights. They’re going to get themselves killed, and get some innocent driver thrown in prison for their own stupid mistakes in the process.

Cyclists have an incredibly dangerous, toxic culture when it comes to ignoring traffic laws (in the US at least), and it’s really satisfying seeing them actually face the consequences of their actions for once.

Imagine thinking arbitrary orthographic convention has literally anything to do with intelligence.

The New York Times mini crossword for today

Exactly. Sarah is well aware that it’s not a pencil and paper that’s out of reach for most people, but the time, effort, and talent it used to take for an individual to produce anything worthwhile.

She doesn’t like that the ability to make the pictures in your head appear in real life has been opened up to everyone. She’s strawmanning to gatekeep just like the boomers who say “I had to pay for my school loans and so you should too”.

Sorry, but I still just do not see how stating the obvious fact that “if you come here illegally you will be arrested and deported” can in any way be seen as “propaganda”.

Thanks for the good-faith discussion. :)

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like in that case the “Visit Mexico!” ads I saw when I was growing up in the US would be Mexican propaganda then, correct? Since they’re advancing a specific political cause, namely increasing tourist revenue and the government’s share of that revenue.

In that case, an ad saying “hey, don’t try to get into our country illegally because we’ll arrest and deport you” feels much less like propaganda to me than “hey, come visit our country so we can get your money!” does.

Edit: So, (aside from the comment that mentioned that this may be a mistranslation), if what you say about the situation is correct, to me it’s starting to sound like this might just be the Mexican government being intentionally incendiary and a bit hyperbolic in their language because they’re pissy about the US government going over their head and speaking directly to their people, which may be due to the (accurate or not) perception that the Mexican government isn’t doing enough to prevent illegal immigration. In that case, it seems like my original comment implying that this isn’t really propaganda is still mostly accurate.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense, thanks for the explanation. It definitely feels discriminatory. That’s a terrible translation if this is the case.

You’ll have to explain who you’re talking about, or how that’s relevant.

In any case, this may help. Let me rephrase: “TIL that if you’re American, buying an ad in Mexico saying ‘if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you’ is propaganda.”

TIL that saying “if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you” is propaganda.

Edit: oops, I seem to have accidentally posted a reasonable thought that goes against the circle-jerk. I’ll try to be a bit less objective and a bit more filled with myopic, conformist, unquestioned rage next time I comment here.

Don’t worry, I still believe that disappearing people to El Salvador is a terrible thing, and it makes me really angry, so I think I still pass the tribalist purity test.

Aaaghaagaha hahaagagha.

That poison?