roscoe

I'm very confused, but I have to go into work. Can someone summarize for my lazy ass what the fuck is going on here?

No one else wants to bring back anomalocaris so we can get some payback?

Yup, that's another one. I think that one is even worse because the new usage makes it a contranym. Dictionaries are starting to include the new usage of that one too. Unless you have a reason to be pretty sure the author/speaker knows the correct definition, it can be difficult to tell.

It means puzzled and/or confused.

Many authors seem to think it means amused mixed with some confusion or puzzlement or something else like that.

Some dictionaries have started to include definitions along those lines, which is correct to do if that is becoming a common usage. But that makes the word bullshit because it no longer conveys a clear meaning. Unlike some words that gain new meanings through misuse, it's usually not clear which meaning is intended from context. Usually I can easily imagine a character's response to something to be either of these definitions so I often can't understand the author's intention. I often find myself taken out of the story while I try to understand which meaning I should use. Because of this I think the word has become useless and shouldn't be used.

Bemused

It's used incorrectly so often that even when I suspect it's being used correctly I can't be sure. At this point its ambiguity makes it a bad word choice.

"A Transport For London camera study of 7,500 cyclists at five junctions found in 2007 that, contrary to popular perception, most cyclists do not run reds: 84% of the cyclists stopped at red traffic lights."

This surprised me. I haven't noticed that many cyclists running reds. The tone seemed to suggest that was a good statistic for some reason. That is way too high. If 16% of cars ran red lights my life expectancy would be about three days. I'm in favor of cyclists bending or breaking rules to protect themselves but I don't think running reds qualifies. Everyone should always stop at reds. I'm a bit of a scofflaw when it comes to some traffic laws but that's too far.

I vote for this to become official.

What's the opposite of eating the onion? I read your comment and scoffed, wondering who could actually believe this. The I saw the "Not" in the comm name.

Still don't know how that makes 21-23 "current." Just going to double-down on refusing to read the comment chain and make it about what you want, are you?

And? What does 21-23 have to do with who is "currently in power"? And how many SC justices has Biden appointed?

Maybe you should read the entire conversation, it's not long, instead of knee-jerking to one comment.

Edit: You know how you "restructure" the DNC? You show the fuck up. The average local office would only need 5-6 people regularly showing up, every meeting, not just the last few months before a presidential election, to shift resources and voting recommendations to more progressive primary candidates.

Holding one of three branches is not "in power."

All spending bills have to originate in the republican controlled house. Anything the administration tries to do on it's own has to survive a heavily politicized Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that would be radically different without the Trump presidency. We'll be dealing with those Trump appointees for a generation and they'll do far more harm than he ever did. Not enough people voting blue in 2016 is going to have very long lasting consequences.