Declaring yourself as an “Oscar nominated writer” to win an internet argument is like declaring yourself as second place finalist in the shit eating olympics
Not even. It’s more like bragging about participating in a tournament that determined your eligibility for the Olympics lol
I can hear the pitch now: "Imagine Viva La Bam for people who listen to NPR"
high concept prank show
Sounds like something Idiot Doom Spiral would invent.
It's greatness came not from writers, but Sacha's performance and the target's credulity.
The actual pranks were kinda dumb and without those two factors propping them up it wouldn't have worked.
Imagine expecting other people to be impressed by the writing of Borat 2 lmao
Holy shit no wonder he kept it vague. Also explains why he writes like a character from Borat.
Wait so not even the first movie? How pathetic. The second one sucked so much ass
Liberals love using big words that make them sound incomprehensible.
Cows just want to relax, eat vegan food, and have a good mating season. Bovine aspirations sound alright.
Bulls occasionally get in the mood to utterly fuck things up for no reason
100% this guy felt he needed to show his mastery of the English language after he wanted to let everyone know he's an Oscar nominated writer. So he thought he was writing the best mic drop ever with long words from the thesaurus showing how great of a writer he is and that his opponent is not as intelligent therefore the opponent is lost. Then Boots just mocks him without trying lmao
In the battle of "I would challenge you to an intellectual debate but it would be unfair, for it appears you seem to be unarmed" vs. "ur mom suck me good and hard through my jorts" the jorts is always going to win because nobody likes a pretentious asshole
You know how they say Florida is America's dick? In Britain's case they didn't even make a euphemism for their body part in the southeast.
Brother, long time BLM supporter and left wing progressive here. Have to say the idea that you don’t want people seeing this film is a bit sus. We’re talking about an order of magnitude intentional barbarism way worse than tragic inadvertent loss of life.
https://nitter.net/RigidRef/status/1722627989694042164#m
"Order of magnitude worse" literally describes Palestinian casualties. Not even, it might be two orders of magnitude in terms of innocent civilians. Wild having a worldview built from pure vibes and wonder woman's fake propaganda film.
"Israel only accidentally commits genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hamas deliberately killed soldiers and settlers!""Israel only accidentally commits genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hamas deliberately killed soldiers and settlers!"
It's actually worse, I think he's telling a black man that the police killings that led to BLM were "tragic inadvertent loss of life".
it only took one reply for them to start talking about "barbaric" and "inferior" culture. left wing progressive indeed.
Anyone who uses two &'s around a single word shouldn't call themselves a writer
In seriousness, is there a rule against doing that? Is it considered poor form?
So idk what the exact prescriptive rules are, but the way I've always used the ampersand (and have seen it used) is to make it easier to parse a sentence that's like
I need to talk about spelunking and skydiving and scuba diving is scheduled for next week.
While this would probably be clear in speech from prosodic cues (e.g. pauses and emphasis), in writing it's not obvious where "things to talk about" end and "activities scheduled for next week" begin. This ambiguity can be cleared up by an ampersand, which is used to group two items together but is not used as a conjunction for introducing a new cause. So if I replace the first "and" with an ampersand like this:
I need to talk about spelunking & skydiving and scuba diving is scheduled for next week.
it becomes clear that "spelunking & skydiving" are the things I want to talk about and "scuba diving" is the scheduled activity. Since I know that & only serves the function of grouping two bits together (nouns in this case), as soon as I hit the "and" I know that it's the beginning of a second clause. Ampersands can be useful even in a case which isn't ambiguous, like
I need to talk about spelunking and skydiving and I would also like a taco.
"Skydiving and I would and also like a taco" is obviously not a plausible interpretation for the second clause of the sentence, but even so, there's still a tiny bit of extra work your brain has to do to parse the first "and" as an item-grouper and the second "and" as a clause introducer. Using an ampersand in place of the first "and" makes things a little easier for the reader.
I'd guess that in a professional writing scenario it's probably better to rewrite the sentence to avoid ambiguity rather than leaning on the ampersand, but if you're just writing a comment on the internet who's got time for that? Oh, and obviously in less formal situations people might just use & just for the hell of it, but that feels kinda boomer-coded to me. For what it's worth, the tweet in question is exactly 280 characters so it's probably just a Twitter word limit thing.
Wow, now I know about proper(ish) ampersand usage! I had inuited some of this, that ampersands can be used to group words togrther, but this makes it clearer. This is rad, ty.
there are no rules with english but it is poor form to repeat words too close to one another like that without an artistic or rhetorical purpose
"As a nominee for the Nobel peace prize, I, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia..."
"I have a fact-based understanding, not like you children who have ideologies"
