"It's obviously the historical definition. That's nearly self-evident."
Of course that's pretty clear. However, words change meaning over time. Try reading some Shakespeare or better still, Grendel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course I already illustrated this point several posts ago when I described how the meaning of the term "second world" has changed in the three world categorization of countries.
It's fine to prattle on with classic definitions if you like but all that means is you're using an out of date definition. If I insist that "second world" means communist countries because that's the "classic definition" I still end up being wrong in any modern context.
"But, by all means, if you really want to continue this amazing and enlightening discussion, go right ahead."
I may have missed your sarcasm but at least for the actual point on hand i actually understand the difference between state and city government in the US and how their roles work.
Maybe try taking that up with every dictionary maker on the planet.
In the meantime I'll stick with formal definitions rather than the opinion of someone who is willing to maintain their correctness in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
"I'm using the classic definition of what imperialism is. This isn't difficult. Imperialism historically requires dominion over another territory."
So by your own omission you are using an outdated definition? I've provide you with a half dozen current ones, I'm surprised you haven't checked them.
"This discussion has reached its conclusion, in fact it did a while ago. I'm using the classic historical definition of imperialism, and you're not. That's all there is to it, there's nothing else to say."
This discussion has reached its conclusion because you haven't had a leg to stand on for several posts. A half dozen literal definitions from reputable sources validate the terms usage in the context being discussed. You have nothing in this context so you're trying to pretend you're leaving the conversation because you're correct despite a mountain of formally cited evidence to the contrary. Rather than say "Shit, I was wrong" you've chosen to perpetuate an image of correctness while providing zero evidence for such a claim.
Basically you're wrong and too much of a douche to own up to it.
Yes you are, you're lying to me by omission. You are purposely leaving out inconvenient parts of the term's definition.
", you're just easily triggered."
Easily trigger by people lying to me? Yeah, sure.
"Well, here's a question, then - what happens when there are two definitions that are in opposition? Because the main definition, the one that I've pasted numerous times, from the top of that page (you know, right under the heading "definition of imperialism") is in opposition to that "learners definition," they don't mean the same thing."
Apparently you're new to dictionaries. Words sometimes have multiple definitions. The definitions are all correct, that's why they are there. Dictionary makers don't list false definitions along with real ones. In other words, the parent used the term imperialism correctly as I have been saying this whole time and have clearly illustrated multiple times across multiple sources.
"Obviously different people take the word to have different meanings. I'm referring to the actual definition of an empire, and you're referring to something else, a more recent watered-down version that people like to use as propaganda against their opponents, as Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] points out: "the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy." That's the version you're using, I'm using the correct version."
Empire and imperialism are two different words. Furthermore, words change over time. Take the first through third word spectrum. Second world used to mean communist but that is no longer the case. If you've ever read something over 300 years old in the English language then you have observed this.
Anyways, this part is largely irrelevant because I have clearly sited multiple formal definitions where the original parents use of the word clearly fit.
"We've literally been talking about the definition on the same exact web page,"
I've been holding out hope for your sake that perhaps your M-W abbreviation meant something else. Sadly for you it clearly does not.
"there's no reason to keep posting the same link unless your attention span is as small as your IQ.""
Oh, how clever...
"*citing. I'm sure you knew that though, since you do it so often."
A spelling error! Oh good lord, everything I have said must be invalidated then!?
No, you're just nitpicking.
I've literally shown you a half dozen formal definitions from proper sources that all include parts that validate the word's usage in the parent's post we are discussing. Tenacity is all well and good but you've been completely failing to make a proper contrary point for a bit now. If I'm wrong you need to show me that those definitions I have provided are invalid. Of course they aren't so you haven't had a leg to stand on since I posted them.
Democrats and state governance have nothing to do with city and county matters. Regional growth is just that.
Also, the eastern front for Germany was already failing before D-day. We didn't win WW2 for the Russians, all we did in Europe was keep Western Europe out of their hands.
"Without rent control you get a lot of expensive housing that often sits empty for a long time waiting for someone willing to pay those sky high rents."
You very clearly don't live in California. The sky high rents are due to a housing shortage. People are lining up to pay these rates because they need a place to live and like living around here. I know renters, when they have to move to a new home they have to move fast on deals like $2,500 for a small 3 bedroom single family house because that's a really good deal around here.
It takes on a lot of different forms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... . In any context I've heard of though it seems to do the opposite it terms of solving a housing shortage. It just eases the symptoms for a minority of people.
Where I'm at it's still mostly being discussed as out of control housing costs only started less than a decade ago. I'm in Sonoma County about an hour North of SF. It's always been a bit expensive here because of the climate but SF's housing problems are now bleeding off and dramtically worsening ours. It also doesnt help that low growth political groups have become significant around here as well.
Here's what makes you wrong there ": the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries"
I notice you still don't post links because you're still picking and choosing what you want from where ever you want. I'm fairly certain you don't even understand why siting sources is important in any critical context.
It also discourages the construction of new rental properties as areas with high rents typically have high land values as well. High rents and property values typically go hand in hand.
Given this, why would anyone buy land to build on if they couldn't charge market rates for rent? It would take far too long to earn back from rent what they spent (let alone make a profit), particularly with property taxes added it.
Many families would love to live in high rise blocks in California. Working class people in silicon valley are living multiple families per single family home. Meanwhile, small single family homes are going for over a million there. How would either of those be better than an affordable high rise for a family?
Most of the world's major first world cities have plenty of families in high rise housing. I think you're just expressing your own personal bias against such living situations.
You do certainly have a point on mixed use zoning though.
Unfortunately our states Leftist have forgotten that being a leftist means first, second, and third, looking out for those with less money.
Developers are evil (never mind all these people's homes were built by them). California will always be an attractive place to live so building more homes won't do anything (never mind the laws of supply and demand). We can't build upwards because we have to protect our community! (never mind that your community is full of working class people who will suffer and your kids will probably never be able to buy a home near you unless you do it for them).
This is all bullshit I hear from local Leftists living just north of SF where property values are certainly going insane (and for the record I'm fairly left wing). All this is personally great for me because I'm a home owner although it does make most things a bit expensive. What really bothers me is all the working class people suffering because no one will own up to the only solution. It's all rent control and low income housing which do nothing to solve our massive housing shortage and in some ways exacerbates the problem.
Plus, I was one of these people once and was lucky enough to live around here when a single working class person with a roommate could live comfortably.
"Costs change all the time. For example, the price of tomatos changes weekly. Fast food places don't change their prices daily by 1% or 2%. Instead, every couple years they change prices. The minimum wage hike was significant enough that it forced a price reset. That reset included othet actual or expected cost increases."
Cool, so if they were already so close to a price reset then it wasn't really the increase in minimum wage that did it at all. A bad tomato harvest would have done just the same.
"Think about that for a minute. Why don't we just set minimum wage to $5,000 / hour?"
You throwing out a massively different number than what any serious human being is talking about is just ridiculous and meaningless in this context. Obviously there's an upward limit somewhere. Where exactly that is, as with many things in economics, we don't precisely know but as this report is pointing out we clearly haven't hit it yet.
This isn't a sales Rep at an Apple store we're talking about here, this is a fairly significant figure if they can be sued for damages in the millions. Furthermore, she clearly knew what she was doing was not allowed as she was trying to hide which phone she was using while she was using it. That clearly implies she understands the difference.
And no, the general public is well aware that Apple and Android phones run different OS's. They may be fuzzy on the details but we're talking about an incredibly common consumer item. Most understand the jist of it.
I do respond to non AC comments even if they are down a step...
I literally put no words in the parent's mouth. All I did was point to claims made by the Remain side as a means of establishing that they weren't all lies. You're ridiculous for claiming a clear AC troll got something right.
No, for starters you've yet to post an accurate definition yourself because by your own account "The M-W definition I quoted in full" and yet there's a line that I've quoted from it that was not in your post that completely refutes your claims. You're fucking lying to me.
You're reading specific parts of definitions without reading the full text and saying "Duh, see, this proves I'm right" when I have literally shown you how in every fucking link to a definition that I posted how you are wrong.
When you can refute 6 definitions that clearly refute your claim as I have already clearly illustrated in a second post then get back to me. Otherwise, quit wasting my time.
"Actually, it's highly unlikely that she even knows what an OS is, let alone that there are different ones."
How do you come to that conclusion? If she doesn't understand that how on earth would she have been hired as a Samsung rep? I feel fairly confident a massive corporate entity isn't that incompetent when hiring reps.
"Which means... Samsung's phones really must suck."
How on earth does that follow? For starters Samsung phones run the same OS as every other phone on the market except for Apple's so how on earth can they be offering such a significantly worse experience? After that, their phones are always well received critically including this latest gen and have been absurdly popular for about a decade now. You don't achieve the market dominance Samsung has in such a competitive market as Android smart phones without making a good product.
Given all of this it seems infinitely more likely they were teaching a lesson here and confident enough in their brand that they could care less about how it shows in the news. Besides, how mainstream is this news going to be? I seriously doubt it will even register in terms of general social consciousness.
For the record, I just switched off from being a 7 or 8 year Samsung user to a different brand. My choice, however, had nothing to do with a lack of quality in their phones. It had everything to do with price versus value and the fact that there are a ton of cheaper smart phones on the market nowadays that do exactly what I want them to do for half the price of a Samsung. This carries over to Apple as well as their phones are of very similar capabilities and cost the same ludicrous amounts. Both top tier brands are completely failing nowadays to deliver anything that properly distinguishes themselves from phones that are half the price.
This Samsung rep was clearly just a twit who preferred Apple's OS over Android so much she was willing to risk her job over it.
"https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=DFzPW_zQGuS70PEPyMC9wAo&q=imperialism+definition&oq=imperialism&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i131l10.7085.7085..9611...1.0..0.92.243.3......0....1j2..gws-wiz.....0.hSdjwZqWRg0" Well this is the one I originally used and it's pretty clear with "influence through diplomacy or...."
https://www.collinsdictionary.... "...or a desire for control over other countries." "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic or political affairs of underdeveloped areas or weaker countries"
"https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism" "... or by gaining political and economic control of other areas"
Slashdot Mirror
"It's obviously the historical definition. That's nearly self-evident."
Of course that's pretty clear. However, words change meaning over time. Try reading some Shakespeare or better still, Grendel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course I already illustrated this point several posts ago when I described how the meaning of the term "second world" has changed in the three world categorization of countries.
It's fine to prattle on with classic definitions if you like but all that means is you're using an out of date definition. If I insist that "second world" means communist countries because that's the "classic definition" I still end up being wrong in any modern context.
"But, by all means, if you really want to continue this amazing and enlightening discussion, go right ahead."
I do love feeding the trolls!
I may have missed your sarcasm but at least for the actual point on hand i actually understand the difference between state and city government in the US and how their roles work.
Maybe try taking that up with every dictionary maker on the planet.
In the meantime I'll stick with formal definitions rather than the opinion of someone who is willing to maintain their correctness in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
"I'm using the classic definition of what imperialism is. This isn't difficult. Imperialism historically requires dominion over another territory."
So by your own omission you are using an outdated definition? I've provide you with a half dozen current ones, I'm surprised you haven't checked them.
"This discussion has reached its conclusion, in fact it did a while ago. I'm using the classic historical definition of imperialism, and you're not. That's all there is to it, there's nothing else to say."
This discussion has reached its conclusion because you haven't had a leg to stand on for several posts. A half dozen literal definitions from reputable sources validate the terms usage in the context being discussed. You have nothing in this context so you're trying to pretend you're leaving the conversation because you're correct despite a mountain of formally cited evidence to the contrary. Rather than say "Shit, I was wrong" you've chosen to perpetuate an image of correctness while providing zero evidence for such a claim.
Basically you're wrong and too much of a douche to own up to it.
"I'm not lying to you..."
Yes you are, you're lying to me by omission. You are purposely leaving out inconvenient parts of the term's definition.
", you're just easily triggered."
Easily trigger by people lying to me? Yeah, sure.
"Well, here's a question, then - what happens when there are two definitions that are in opposition? Because the main definition, the one that I've pasted numerous times, from the top of that page (you know, right under the heading "definition of imperialism") is in opposition to that "learners definition," they don't mean the same thing."
Apparently you're new to dictionaries. Words sometimes have multiple definitions. The definitions are all correct, that's why they are there. Dictionary makers don't list false definitions along with real ones. In other words, the parent used the term imperialism correctly as I have been saying this whole time and have clearly illustrated multiple times across multiple sources.
"Obviously different people take the word to have different meanings. I'm referring to the actual definition of an empire, and you're referring to something else, a more recent watered-down version that people like to use as propaganda against their opponents, as Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] points out: "the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy." That's the version you're using, I'm using the correct version."
Empire and imperialism are two different words. Furthermore, words change over time. Take the first through third word spectrum. Second world used to mean communist but that is no longer the case. If you've ever read something over 300 years old in the English language then you have observed this.
Anyways, this part is largely irrelevant because I have clearly sited multiple formal definitions where the original parents use of the word clearly fit.
"We've literally been talking about the definition on the same exact web page,"
I've been holding out hope for your sake that perhaps your M-W abbreviation meant something else. Sadly for you it clearly does not.
"there's no reason to keep posting the same link unless your attention span is as small as your IQ.""
Oh, how clever...
"*citing. I'm sure you knew that though, since you do it so often."
A spelling error! Oh good lord, everything I have said must be invalidated then!?
No, you're just nitpicking.
I've literally shown you a half dozen formal definitions from proper sources that all include parts that validate the word's usage in the parent's post we are discussing. Tenacity is all well and good but you've been completely failing to make a proper contrary point for a bit now. If I'm wrong you need to show me that those definitions I have provided are invalid. Of course they aren't so you haven't had a leg to stand on since I posted them.
How about some other pro tips?
Democrats and state governance have nothing to do with city and county matters. Regional growth is just that.
Also, the eastern front for Germany was already failing before D-day. We didn't win WW2 for the Russians, all we did in Europe was keep Western Europe out of their hands.
You seems to be a terribly ignorant person.
Oh good, I'm so glad an expert came to sort my shit out for me. Thank you so much, you've been like a beautiful guiding light to a jackass' opinion.
"Without rent control you get a lot of expensive housing that often sits empty for a long time waiting for someone willing to pay those sky high rents."
You very clearly don't live in California. The sky high rents are due to a housing shortage. People are lining up to pay these rates because they need a place to live and like living around here. I know renters, when they have to move to a new home they have to move fast on deals like $2,500 for a small 3 bedroom single family house because that's a really good deal around here.
Just watch and see how long homes below 3k stay on this list https://www.zillow.com/sonoma-... . It's not very long
It takes on a lot of different forms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... . In any context I've heard of though it seems to do the opposite it terms of solving a housing shortage. It just eases the symptoms for a minority of people.
Where I'm at it's still mostly being discussed as out of control housing costs only started less than a decade ago. I'm in Sonoma County about an hour North of SF. It's always been a bit expensive here because of the climate but SF's housing problems are now bleeding off and dramtically worsening ours. It also doesnt help that low growth political groups have become significant around here as well.
"Don't get so butthurt, princess."
If you don't want people treating you like an asshole then don't lie to them.
Here is the M-W entry on this term.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Here's what makes you wrong there
": the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries"
I notice you still don't post links because you're still picking and choosing what you want from where ever you want. I'm fairly certain you don't even understand why siting sources is important in any critical context.
It also discourages the construction of new rental properties as areas with high rents typically have high land values as well. High rents and property values typically go hand in hand.
Given this, why would anyone buy land to build on if they couldn't charge market rates for rent? It would take far too long to earn back from rent what they spent (let alone make a profit), particularly with property taxes added it.
Many families would love to live in high rise blocks in California. Working class people in silicon valley are living multiple families per single family home. Meanwhile, small single family homes are going for over a million there. How would either of those be better than an affordable high rise for a family?
Most of the world's major first world cities have plenty of families in high rise housing. I think you're just expressing your own personal bias against such living situations.
You do certainly have a point on mixed use zoning though.
Mod up a hundred times.
Unfortunately our states Leftist have forgotten that being a leftist means first, second, and third, looking out for those with less money.
Developers are evil (never mind all these people's homes were built by them). California will always be an attractive place to live so building more homes won't do anything (never mind the laws of supply and demand). We can't build upwards because we have to protect our community! (never mind that your community is full of working class people who will suffer and your kids will probably never be able to buy a home near you unless you do it for them).
This is all bullshit I hear from local Leftists living just north of SF where property values are certainly going insane (and for the record I'm fairly left wing). All this is personally great for me because I'm a home owner although it does make most things a bit expensive. What really bothers me is all the working class people suffering because no one will own up to the only solution. It's all rent control and low income housing which do nothing to solve our massive housing shortage and in some ways exacerbates the problem.
Plus, I was one of these people once and was lucky enough to live around here when a single working class person with a roommate could live comfortably.
"Costs change all the time. For example, the price of tomatos changes weekly. Fast food places don't change their prices daily by 1% or 2%. Instead, every couple years they change prices. The minimum wage hike was significant enough that it forced a price reset. That reset included othet actual or expected cost increases."
Cool, so if they were already so close to a price reset then it wasn't really the increase in minimum wage that did it at all. A bad tomato harvest would have done just the same.
"Think about that for a minute. Why don't we just set minimum wage to $5,000 / hour?"
You throwing out a massively different number than what any serious human being is talking about is just ridiculous and meaningless in this context. Obviously there's an upward limit somewhere. Where exactly that is, as with many things in economics, we don't precisely know but as this report is pointing out we clearly haven't hit it yet.
This isn't a sales Rep at an Apple store we're talking about here, this is a fairly significant figure if they can be sued for damages in the millions. Furthermore, she clearly knew what she was doing was not allowed as she was trying to hide which phone she was using while she was using it. That clearly implies she understands the difference.
Semantics, nice.
And no, the general public is well aware that Apple and Android phones run different OS's. They may be fuzzy on the details but we're talking about an incredibly common consumer item. Most understand the jist of it.
Heaven help us!
I do respond to non AC comments even if they are down a step...
I literally put no words in the parent's mouth. All I did was point to claims made by the Remain side as a means of establishing that they weren't all lies. You're ridiculous for claiming a clear AC troll got something right.
No, for starters you've yet to post an accurate definition yourself because by your own account "The M-W definition I quoted in full" and yet there's a line that I've quoted from it that was not in your post that completely refutes your claims. You're fucking lying to me.
You're reading specific parts of definitions without reading the full text and saying "Duh, see, this proves I'm right" when I have literally shown you how in every fucking link to a definition that I posted how you are wrong.
When you can refute 6 definitions that clearly refute your claim as I have already clearly illustrated in a second post then get back to me. Otherwise, quit wasting my time.
"Actually, it's highly unlikely that she even knows what an OS is, let alone that there are different ones."
How do you come to that conclusion? If she doesn't understand that how on earth would she have been hired as a Samsung rep? I feel fairly confident a massive corporate entity isn't that incompetent when hiring reps.
"Which means... Samsung's phones really must suck."
How on earth does that follow? For starters Samsung phones run the same OS as every other phone on the market except for Apple's so how on earth can they be offering such a significantly worse experience? After that, their phones are always well received critically including this latest gen and have been absurdly popular for about a decade now. You don't achieve the market dominance Samsung has in such a competitive market as Android smart phones without making a good product.
Given all of this it seems infinitely more likely they were teaching a lesson here and confident enough in their brand that they could care less about how it shows in the news. Besides, how mainstream is this news going to be? I seriously doubt it will even register in terms of general social consciousness.
For the record, I just switched off from being a 7 or 8 year Samsung user to a different brand. My choice, however, had nothing to do with a lack of quality in their phones. It had everything to do with price versus value and the fact that there are a ton of cheaper smart phones on the market nowadays that do exactly what I want them to do for half the price of a Samsung. This carries over to Apple as well as their phones are of very similar capabilities and cost the same ludicrous amounts. Both top tier brands are completely failing nowadays to deliver anything that properly distinguishes themselves from phones that are half the price.
This Samsung rep was clearly just a twit who preferred Apple's OS over Android so much she was willing to risk her job over it.
Oh jesus christ. Your bullshit is astounding. All your doing is refuting given definitions. Let me show you.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
"or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas"
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
"and economic methods"
"https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=DFzPW_zQGuS70PEPyMC9wAo&q=imperialism+definition&oq=imperialism&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i131l10.7085.7085..9611...1.0..0.92.243.3......0....1j2..gws-wiz.....0.hSdjwZqWRg0" ...."
Well this is the one I originally used and it's pretty clear with "influence through diplomacy or
https://www.collinsdictionary....
"...or a desire for control over other countries."
"the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic or political affairs of underdeveloped areas or weaker countries"
"https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism"
"... or by gaining political and economic control of other areas"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"or by gaining political and economic control of other areas"
"...or other means."
I know you want to be correct here so bad but literally every definition here proves you wrong.
Not really.
What's your definition source? I ask because here are six that don't require direct conquest.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
https://www.google.com/search?... (no idea where google gets its definitions but there it is)
https://www.collinsdictionary....
https://www.britannica.com/top...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.oxforddictionaries....