Arkouda

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I did not realize that I was notified only because you @ me, not responded to me, so I responded as though it was directed at me.

Don't take too much of an issue with it. I misunderstood the situation, and dealt with it as such. No hate on new accounts generally, but being here for a year has me seeing new accounts as a big red flag.

Again, apologies for the misunderstanding!

EDIT:

Because I am a dumb dumb and apparently cannot Lemmy, ignore this comment. Leaving it up to show how silly I can be.

I feel quite silly explaining this, because it seems like you probably don’t want a real answer, but “they” is used when referring to a general group of people.

The singular use of "they/them" has existed since the 14th century, and is not simply "a general group of people' by definition in modern English.

@[email protected] was answering in a way that could be applied to anyone, including OP’s son.

I find the advice to be universal, so what is the problem with it being applied to anyone?

Why be exclusive when you can be inclusive?

Why do you believe neutral language meant to include every one is exclusionary?

Why try to turn a wholesome comment into a gender-war?

The only people I see making this a "gender war" are you, the two month old account, and the 12 day old account who also responded after being triggered by neutral language. I am open to a good faith discussion about this, but you will need to demonstrate your good faith in the next reply if you want that.

Otherwise, take care.

She’s talking about her twelve-year-old son, and that’s specified. What reason could you possibly have for using “they/them”?

I generally try to default to neutral terms. There is no need to get this triggered over my choice to use neutral pronouns.

I don't see it as a problem, even long term. I think children are allowed to seek comfort when they need it from their parents.

The only thing I would say is that because this isn't normal behavior, and started recently, you should have a talk with them about why they are feeling the need to sleep with you now. It could be an underlying issue or it could be that they are experiencing stressors in life they aren't able to cope with.

Either way, talking to them about it would be the best idea.

"The Government of Canada will not accept a bad deal," Carney said in French in Huntsville, Ont., Tuesday. "Our objective is not to reach a deal whatever it costs. We are pursuing a deal that will be in the best interest of Canadians."

When it comes to the prospect of reaching a deal, Carney said "we'll see" and that "complex negotiations" continue. He said if there isn't a deal that works for Canada, his government will "take stock" and consider what to do next.

This doesn't sound like what you are describing, and seems firm considering how dangerous of a situation this is.

"I've had over 80 bilaterals with world leaders since I became prime minister. A number of the premiers have been on major trade missions. We have other things to do," he said.

This sounds like the Government has other plans for when Trump talks fall through. Which has been being worked on over the last few months. From trade to arms procurement there is a lot of diversification efforts happening across governments.

There is a lot going on and the focus doesn't really seem to be getting something from the US anytime soon.

I would argue this time Carney’s comment is a worthless plattitude. You can sign anything and claim it was the best deal for Canada.

What does a good deal for Canada look like to you?

What supports your argument?

You could look at him removing the digital services tax and negotiating with the US as anti-Canada things he’s done

Despite him saying he’s looking out for Canada

One could look at it like that, but I do not see why they would. Can you explain why one would see it that way?

What has he said he was going to do that he hasn't done yet?

I didn't realize this was a thing for me until now, but that sentence grinds all of my gears, and I hate it.

Fair point!

If the end goal is moving to Idiocracy, I do not remember exactly the episode but I do remember Beavis and Butthead met people who were dumber than them, which was the whole episode, and the humour felt a lot like what Idiocracy was as a whole.

It has been a long time since I saw the show so hopefully you know what I am talking about, and that I am not misremembering it. haha

This seems like a circular argument to me.

The area doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the workers needed to build it, but we need to build infrastructure to solve the problem, but we cannot do that because we don't have the infrastructure built to support the workers.

Unfortunately that means updating infrastructure is likely going to cause pain and strain, and doesn't seem like a good argument against building these things.