chumbalumber

oh look. it's the brave little cis boy

You're right, and I don't want you to feel like no-one agrees with you.

I think you're missing the point of the original comment. Describing modern conservatism as a disability at once absolves conservatives of their responsibility not to hold abhorrent views, by classing it as a characteristic they have no control over, and lumps people with disabilities into a group that, in a non-insignificant number of cases, wants them dead or sterilised.

That's why the commenter was upset with you; not because you've criticised eugenics, but because you've been massively insensitive, and when someone pointed out that insensitivity you became defensive and attacked them in return.

Looks ai generated, so not too surprised it's wrong

What do you think is in the beans??

Eh, you wouldn't use the noun water to refer to atoms of water. 'How many waters are there?' to refer to atoms of water is the statement of someone deranged

Depends on if you're using water to include types of water (if, like a maniacal madman, you have mixed Evian, Buxton and Harrogate mineral water into one jug). Then 'i mixed fewer waters' or 'there are fewer waters in that glass' would be valid.

To be clear: I'm not the person you replied to, just someone who finds it quite interesting (in the same way that the plural fishes is valid if you're talking about different species of fish).

And yes, I know prescriptivism is bad, but also it is quite fun.

They're referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand)

Fingers crossed!

The sheer pleasure in watching an arrogant tit get humbled was chef's kiss. Once by someone who couldn't give a shit about him, and was good enough to simply crush him the first few games and then dick about, and once by someone who really wanted a statement victory

It funny because yesterday the chess did not, in fact, speak for itself

I read that as courting. Which honestly... Yeah?