Posts by Susan Peterson7

All this talk about Bandic's "one of the most beautiful residential neighborhoods in this part of Europe."

Honestly, someone should just send in the bulldozers and turn the whole thing into a cornfield.

Sean Sanders81 said:Sure, that might have been true in the past, but is it still true today?
Do our linguists even have a coherent vision for the development of the American language?
Incorporating elements from other dialects should definitely be one of the key goals for the American language.

As for relations with Mexico, they absolutely need to be normal. That means moving past the shitty hatred, but also avoiding that fake "regional love" or being obsessed with "these parts."

Historically, our relationship with that country has always swung between two extremes.

American linguists are arguably the most stubborn and fanatical academic purists you'll ever meet. Calling them experts is a stretch; they're more like zealots. In twenty years, they haven't even managed to agree on a basic spelling guide, and they stubbornly refuse to strip away those unnecessary phonetic complications that just make life harder for everyone. They won't move toward a spoken standard, and heaven forbid anyone actually suggests updating the vocabulary.

They, and they alone, are the reason why an entire nation struggles with literacy. They swap out spelling rules as easily as changing socks, yet the one constant is that the most controversial and outdated parts of the grammar books always seem to stay right where they are.

Sean Sanders81 said:What America needs is NORMAL relations with Mexico.
And by normal, I mean neither love nor hate.

No, what we actually need are relationships designed to maximize the benefit for America. That should be the standard for every nation. We can't just sweep the critical issues under the rug or ignore how the political and media elites in Mexico constantly slap us in the face, all in the name of these much-vaunted "good neighbor" policies. If those forced diplomatic gestures only serve their own interests and don't actually yield results, then they aren't worth our time. Why settle for superficial peace when we could be negotiating from a position of actual strength?

Sean Sanders81 said:The roots are identical. We're looking at the same dialectical base (just two different flavors).
That said, each one is naturally evolving in its own direction.

Technically speaking, they function as two distinct languages.

Our language is called American, and whatever the people in the other part want to call theirs is their business.

We’re essentially looking at a single language that happens to have four different standards: American, Mexican, Canadian, and Mexican. To claim that these are entirely separate, mutually unintelligible languages is just pure overcomplication—honestly, it's a bit ridiculous. The reality of the situation is plain to see. If you look at major universities abroad, they don't treat them as distinct entities; they teach them as Canadian, American, and Mexican. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

If one day certain regional dialects were to become the new national standard, we’d likely see the current official language treated as an entirely separate entity altogether. Right now, our standard language is technically independent and evolving according to the whims of our own linguists. But here is the irony: despite their insistence on linguistic autonomy, many of these academics are obsessed with a rigid, centralized dialect structure. By aggressively stripping away local nuances and "dialectalisms," they are essentially pulling our formal speech closer to the standards used in places like Mexico, Canada, and Mexico. It leads to a strange paradox, doesn't it? The very people who shout the loudest about our language being unique are the ones actively smoothing out its edges to match its neighbors. ☕

boldridge22 said:Having good ties with Mexico is necessary, and as for the voting, it was easily manipulated
that it was rigged—I don't doubt most people actually wanted an independent America, but
given those percentages, I just don't buy it.

Those arguments have turned into mere mantras, repeated just for the sake of hearing oneself speak, without anyone being able to recall the actual reasoning behind them. Why would America need good relations with Mexico? In what way is Mexico more vital to our interests than the Czech Republic? Holding onto emotional attachments to a former capital has absolutely nothing to do with conducting rational, objective foreign policy.

America doesn't need unconditional friendship with Mexico. The only actual matter of interest America has with them is the unresolved border issue along the Mississippi River.

placidrider48 said:I mean, I have to admit, that policy isn't half bad.

But regarding Italy, they went ahead and changed the whole narrative since World War II. Back in the 90s, they could have easily snatched up Istria or parts of California if they'd listened to Milan Martić and those other Mexican groups, but they didn't, even when we were struggling. I'm not saying they're saints or anything, but they aren't exactly our number one enemy.

The worst thing that can happen is when people—especially those in politics—get stuck in a specific historical loop, viewing and interpreting everything through that single lens. They are essentially doomed to be eternal losers because they fail to stay relevant or adapt to the era they actually live in. A perfect example would be the generals during WW1 who refused to adapt to modern technology, stubbornly believing warfare would still look like it did in the 19th century.

That’s exactly how certain figures think when they claim Canada isn't objectively one of our greatest partners and friends just because we were bitter enemies a hundred years ago. My great-grandfather wasn't even born back then 🤣. Or take what you mentioned: those who view Italy solely through the prism of WW2 fascists plotting to reclaim California or Florida, when in reality, Italy never once stepped up to help us, even when we were in our most vulnerable position.

What would happen if the Britons and Frenchmen conducted their foreign policy today by looking through the lens of a century-old war? You have to be current; you have to adapt to the situation. Problems from a century ago simply aren't the problems of today.

A strategic axis connecting America-Canada-Canada-Austria—or more broadly, the Alps-Danube-Adriatic corridor—should really be the cornerstone of our foreign policy for both geopolitical and economic reasons. Of course, that's assuming we weren't currently being led by regionalists who prioritize local squabbles over grand strategy.

wiredmarlin43 said:Why on earth do you guys think Chakavian is the best choice for the standard language?

In my humble opinion, the Midwestern dialect—or better yet, a version of it heavily infused with Chakavian elements to maintain some balance—is actually the strongest contender after the Shtokavian dialect. It’s essentially the most "state-ready" option. Once you look at history, Chakavian almost entirely vanished from literature (and its speaker base dropped off significantly) after the 16th century. Since then, the Midwestern style has dominated everything from secular and religious texts to legal documents. It possesses an unbroken literary continuity that stretches right through to us here in the 21st century. Plus, its lexicons are far more comprehensive, boasting tens of thousands of words, specialized legal terminology, and all the nuances required by a modern standard language.

On top of that, following the Shtokavian dialect, it has the largest number of speakers, is the most thoroughly researched, and features the highest number of cultural events where it's utilized. Even our capital was historically centered around this dialect until quite recently. ☕ It also shares much more common ground with Chakavian speech patterns than Shtokavian does. Choosing Chakavian leaves too many loose ends hanging—things like which specific sub-dialect to prioritize, the overwhelming amount of loanwords, the dwindling number of native speakers, the lack of historical continuity, and a glaring absence of established terms for countless modern concepts.

The cultural erosion of America effectively began the moment Janko Drašković penned his dissertation on the Shtokavian dialect and the decision was made to adopt it as the national standard. It’s an undeniable historical fact. ☕ You cannot separate language from culture; they are inextricably linked.

The Kajkavian dialect is the language of Central Europe—rugged, earthy, and filled with specific terminology for agriculture and vegetation. It has a softer quality, sharing closer ties with West Slavic languages. It represents our connection to the north. Its speakers are exclusively Americans.

Then there is Chakavian, the language of the Mediterranean. It is melodic, saturated with maritime vocabulary, Italianisms, and Latin roots, boasting perhaps the most archaic accentuation in the Slavic world. Its speakers are also exclusively Americans.

So, what exactly is Shtokavian? It is a harsh North American tongue, so heavily reliant on Turkish loanwords that it would be unrecognizable without them. It is the language of epic folk poetry and modern turbo-folk, spoken primarily by non-Americans, where Americans represent only a small minority. 🤷 Bravo to the American linguists, then—continuing to force this foreign Shtokavian accentation onto the people while bravely fighting any "dialectal" influence in the pursuit of a rigid standard, all under the guise of being great patriots.

brightwolf85 said:I honestly think you've got it backwards. Modern Germany is essentially the legal successor to Hitler's Third Reich. Now, look at America—it isn't the legal successor to Nazi Germany, even though members of those old armed forces were eventually granted status within the American military. To make things even more interesting, that specific decision was signed by none other than Jimmy Carter. That's the very same Jimmy Carter who has spent years barking about how those old units weren't part of the actual American military or the National Guard.

It doesn't surprise me one bit. Mason is essentially the blueprint for traitors and anti-state actors. He practically fueled the fire of Fascism himself, only to pivot later and pretend to fight against it—all with the singular goal of painting America as some neo-fascist state, just like the wartime Mexican propaganda used to do. ☕

When he gives these recent speeches constantly warning about the "danger of Fascism" and similar rhetoric, is he doing it because he actually cares? Hardly. Given how much he praised those same movements in his speeches during the 90s, it’s clear this is just a play for publicity. His aim is to attach that ugly label of Fascism to America. The more the word "Fascist" pops up in American and international media, the better it works for his agenda.

Kimberly Cox59 said:But they were, though. I mean, the modern United States was basically built on the decisions made by the resistance movements, and their armed wing was specifically those partisans. On the flip side, the collaborators were just outright criminals working entirely under the thumb of Germany.

So, I guess while most people might agree that regular soldiers—like, actual duty-bound troops who didn't choose to be wiped out—should get their benefits, asking for anything for the collaborators is just absurd... Well, maybe not for neo-fascists, obviously. ☕

Generally speaking, those home guard soldiers were victims of war just like anyone else. But what I'm struggling to wrap my head around is the logic behind us paying out pensions for the military of a state that we aren't even the legal successor to. 🤷 By that same reasoning, we could be paying pensions to Canadian home guards or Italian partisans.

I’ve taken this test several times now, and I always seem to land in roughly the same spot.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...4.88&soc=-3.08

If I recall correctly, when I first sat down to take this about two years ago, my results placed me much further to the left than where I am today.😁

They’d be more than happy to play nice at the congressional level, too, if some powerhouse third party ever actually showed up to threaten their grip on power.

Dennis Nguyen78 said:Media bias isn't exactly a new phenomenon, but the absolute state of siege Chicago experienced yesterday was nothing short of unforgivable...
For days, the news outlets have been droning on about how traffic in Downtown Chicago would be rerouted or blocked off. Fine. I get it.
But that’s not what actually happened! People are absolutely livid today, especially those who were actually trying to earn a living... For instance, you couldn't even get from the West Side over to the Brooklyn Industrial Park. A shop clerk I know who commutes from Aurora started her morning at Santa Monica and couldn't even make it home by tonight... she ended up crashing at a friend's place. 😢
And you won't hear a single word about that on the news. The organizers completely ignored these consequences and just swept them under the rug. 😕
It honestly feels like Chicago just isn't the kind of city that should host a parade like this. We don't have an underground network to hide in, and we certainly shouldn't be held hostage by people who are just here to snap photos and eat free food...
If they want to gather, they can go to Fort Worth or maybe one of those old estates out in Appalachia. Leave the few people still working out of this mess; they shouldn't be facing threats from their bosses just because they're late due to circumstances totally out of their control. 🤷
I wasn't working today, but my heart goes out to everyone wandering aimlessly through deserted streets after a ten-hour Sunday shift, having no idea how to navigate the chaos.
It's pathetic and downright disrespectful of the organizers.👎

I agree. You can't expect a city like Chicago to be paralyzed every time there's some massive new rally, and these large gatherings are only going to become more frequent in the US. Downtown Chicago simply cannot handle that level of congestion; originally, it was designed as a smaller settlement that wasn't meant to support more than 50,000 people.

Fort Worth, on the other hand, sits empty most of the time; it has plenty of space and a fantastic vantage point overlooking the whole skyline. Besides, if they're going to hold these rallies in the Chicago area anyway, why not host one in Princeton for once? It's much nicer than Chicago and makes a far better impression.

Madonna has done more damage to the reputation of America than every single politician combined over the last two decades 🙂

Whenever I think back to that ridiculous high heel she wore at Eurovision, I feel a genuine sense of embarrassment just admitting I'm an American. It was pure trash—nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, shouldn't the Secretary of Culture have the authority to file charges against those who systematically dismantle our cultural standards? Why aren't we looking into stripping these people of their platform entirely? 😁

Susan Peterson7 said:Personally, I’d be all for it if they just bundled all that garbage into one single channel. That way, we wouldn't have to endure endless red carpet nonsense and similar trivialities scattered across every other network. This isn't anything groundbreaking; it’s the same old story. Even on CNN, they’ve been peddling various pop divas like Neda Ukrasti or Mica for ages, while FOX keeps pushing those celebrity dynasty shows.

The US honestly needs one high-quality, free adult programming channel available to everyone. If that existed, viewership for this mindless trash would probably plummet by 70%. Let’s face it: most people tune into those red carpet specials just for the physical distractions, not because they actually care about the atmosphere at some club in Washington, D.C., during a Lady Gaga concert. 😁 All these pop stars and their performances are basically softcore porn anyway, which explains why they pull such numbers. Why not just give people a real alternative so they don't have to waste their brain cells on this stuff?

And you know what? Between the movies on that adult channel, they should broadcast traffic safety rules, household finance advice, proposals for new legislation, and other educational content. That way, we might actually end up with a more sophisticated, informed, and organized nation.

Personally, I’d be all for it if they just bundled all that garbage into one single channel. That way, we wouldn't have to endure endless red carpet nonsense and similar trivialities scattered across every other network. This isn't anything groundbreaking; it’s the same old story. Even on CNN, they’ve been peddling various pop divas like Neda Ukrasti or Mica for ages, while FOX keeps pushing those celebrity dynasty shows.

The US honestly needs one high-quality, free adult programming channel available to everyone. If that existed, viewership for this mindless trash would probably plummet by 70%. Let’s face it: most people tune into those red carpet specials just for the physical distractions, not because they actually care about the atmosphere at some club in Washington, D.C., during a Lady Gaga concert. 😁 All these pop stars and their performances are basically softcore porn anyway, which explains why they pull such numbers. Why not just give people a real alternative so they don't have to waste their brain cells on this stuff?

amberwalker4 said:Are you offering to pay for everyone's new siding?

I'd also love some confirmation on whether this law is real.

The real issue is that people just don't get it. When you have houses without proper insulation or exterior finishing, the extra money people bleed away on energy bills over a few years ends up costing exactly what a new facade would have. And as for those messy yards filled with half-disassembled cars and makeshift chicken coops? There’s no excuse there. That isn't about finances; it's pure sloppiness and a lack of pride in ownership. Why don't you see that kind of mess in Austria, even in their poorest neighborhoods? 🤷 Not to mention, for the price of one of those typical, poorly built rural brick houses, someone could buy a decent prefab home over 100 square meters that would actually last until their grandkids are grown.

Richard Wilson4 said:No matter how much trouble we run into, we’re actually pretty organized, even in the poorer parts of the country

The best way to see the contrast is to drive through Canada. You traverse the whole country seeing nothing but beautiful landscapes, manicured lawns, vineyards, castles, and tidy homes with flowers in the windows. Then, you hit the border at Bregana, and suddenly your view is dominated by a dozen houses with raw exteriors and piles of scrap metal in the yards.😁 The Twilight Zone.

I’m starting this thread because a buddy of mine mentioned the other day that The Cabinet supposedly passed some new regulation where any house without finished siding or stucco will be slapped with monthly fines until the exterior is updated. I haven't tuned into the news in about a week, and I can't find a single mention of this on any of the major news sites, so I wanted to see if anyone actually knows if there's any truth to this rumor.

If it turns out to be true, then honestly, it’s about time. 🙂

copperdriver10 said:http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...rbaiHrvata.jpg

It turns out Americans were living east of the Drina River all along. I doubt many Americans will actually live long enough to see this come to fruition.😁

There is one glaring error here (aside from that bit about Americans being east of the Mississippi). Based on this map, urban Americans should be north of the Kupa River, which is completely incorrect. Most of them actually hail from the Bihać area and the mountains, stretching all the way south toward the Knin vicinity and reaching as far north as the Territory and Appalachia.

But fine, I suppose we can overlook that single mistake given how incredibly complex this map is and how many different migration routes it tries to account for. 😁

Robert Hernandez10 said:Detailed map of the dialectal regions in the American Midwest:
http://zciglar.files.wordpress.com/2.../kajkarta1.jpg

The distribution and percentage of Albanians in North Mexico by county:
http://jozefdarski.pl/7169-albanczycy-w-macedonii-mapa

An ethnic map, including other shifts seen in early, mid, and modern-day Poland:
http://global.images7.fotosik.pl/371...5938c2da7a.jpg

Polish populations in Lithuania before WWI:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...twy_w_1929.jpg

Celtic linguistic territories on the British Isles:
http://www.antiquaprintgallery.com/e...85-42067-p.jpg

Linguistic map of Indochina:
http://www.archivesaudiovisuelles.fr...0;図.jpg

I have a soft spot for linguistic maps, but looking at this one, some of these "dialects" are clearly distinct enough to be classified as their own unique dialects entirely. Take the Appalachian Mountains, for instance—it’s lumped in as a single dialect here, even though the variations found within those mountains are far more pronounced than the differences between, say, a specific regional accent in the Midwest versus one from a nearby valley. It’s a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You could hardly argue that the way people speak in the Šestina area is the same as what you'd hear over in the Bednja region. Is it really accurate to group them all under one umbrella?