Now there’s an idea.

IMO, the first statement is half-stupid, the second one is half-overcomplicated :)

Welcome to English, my friend. No one ever claimed that it wasn’t a pain in the arse to learn :)

Lol well teaching this professionally surely makes me some form of authority (albeit of course not the authority!) on this subject.

To clarify, your original point sounded like you were making a distinction between metaphorical mirrors and actual mirrors:

“in the mirror” tends to more often refer to a metaphorical “mirror”, typically when discussing self-reflection

• “I took a look in the mirror and decided to change my ways.”

“in a mirror” tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically

• “I looked into a mirror to fix my eyeliner.”

This incorrect distinction is what I was objecting to, because of course we can use both the indefinite and definite articles to refer to either literal or figurative mirrors.

Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it’s standard usage.

In English, we often use the definite article when speaking in general about a specific activity or action that involves a non-specific object. E.g. “go to the bathroom” or “catch the bus”, or “read the newspaper”. It’s not poor form at all.

A fair guess, but this isn’t one of those times when a grammatical error becomes normalized through common usage.

There is no grammar rule that separates speaking literally versus metaphorically in this case.

“You have something on your face; go take a look in the mirror” is just as grammatically correct in English as “You need to take a good look in the mirror and change your ways.”

I’ve explained why this is standard usage in English in my comment here.

English teacher here. Articles in English can be really confusing but essentially we use the definite article in this situation because:

• Uniqueness: In most situations, there’s only one mirror in a room or a home that’s readily available for someone to look into.
• Generality: Similar to “going to the bathroom,” “look in the mirror” refers to the general act of using a mirror to see oneself, not interacting with any specific mirror.

I understand very well what liberalism and socialism are, thanks. Where we disagree is the definition of the “left” versus the “right”. Even in Europe, the old socialist left is becoming a thing of a bygone age, so of course the Overton window shifts to reflect the current political landscape.

Hang on, so you’re telling me you guys lump social liberals in with classical liberals and neoliberals? That’s definitely not common, but then I suppose if you’re a communist then it kinda makes sense.

Also, while I wouldn’t call Sanders a socialist either, he is not a centrist by any standard measure. I presume you don’t consider anyone a leftist if they don’t advocate for collective ownership and a centrally planned economy?

ML people often tend not to apply ‘liberal’ correctly either, so it goes both ways.

If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.

That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.

Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have a degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term “tankie” in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.

Oh, I agree - calling people Tankies/Liberals/Dronies, especially ad hominem, is reductive and generally unhelpful.

Not so. There are many progressives who stand with Marxists on issues like social justice, LGBTQ issues, and Palestine but who do not feel welcome on instances like Hexbear because they also criticize the CCP.

now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.

With respect, there’s a bit more to it than that.

The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view. If a, let’s say, social democrat says something critical of the CCP and then is immediately censured or banned, they are going to be left with a very negative impression that feeds into the stereotypes that already exist about these instances.

Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.

Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.

It’s a shame that leftist infighting exists to such a degree when we often share about 95% of the same views, compared to the general public.

The Intercept - For their insightful investigative pieces, which are becoming so rare these days.

Ground News - to see what different news sources from across the left/right spectrum are reporting and how they’re reporting it.

“We have investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing.”

That’s why I did a double take when I saw the above headline. Biden finally putting his foot down and strong-arming Israel into a ceasefire would be huge.

But alas…

Thanks, I couldn’t find that part anywhere.

I’m personally not sure that saying “We’re trying to work out … an immediate ceasefire” has nearly the same urgency as as calling for one, but hey at least it’s something.

Sadly, this headline seems to be misleading. Checking for additional sources, I can find none that confirm that he actually called for a ceasefire.

According to the Associated Press, he did decry the loss of life in Gaza and announce that the US are about to commence airdrops of humanitarian aid, but at no point did he seem to do what this headline implies.

A Reuters article covering the same conference mentions the possibility of a ceasefire, but this apparently referred to a previous conversation a few days ago.

Unless anyone can find evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that this Newshub article is clickbait.

No worries.

Nice work.

I’d suggest adding

Material Files (File Manager) looks more stock android than Amaze and even includes an FTP server function.

Kvaesisto (Launcher) is a non-traditional launcher but it’s easily the most polished FOSS android launcher IMO, and is still actively being maintained.

Noice (Uncategorized?) is a very good calming background noise app that allows you to create custom combinations of sounds.

Also, I spotted one small typo - Public Transport is an uncountable noun, so shouldn’t have an ‘s’ on the end.