• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s because cop “unions” aren’t real unions.

    Real unions protect the employment of all their members while fighting for better wages and working conditions.

    Cop “unions” defend criminal cops from the consequences of their actions, fight for impunity for all cop killers (killers who are cops) and lobby the government to fund those heinous activities.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both work. A cop killer can be killer of cops or a killer who happens to also be a cop. I like it over killer cop for two reasons

        1. it implies that the killer part is the essence and the cop part is external to that

        2. it replaces a term meant to set apart a category of killers for being worse because they kill cops (as if “blue lives matter” more than all others) with the many times more common killer that’s worse for being a cop.

        • TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s nice that you like your way and all, but the phrase ‘cop killer’ has a long standing accepted meaning in the English language. You are simply wrong here.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Standard isn’t automatically the only correct usage of a word or phrase. As long as it makes sense and is understandable, it’s correct enough. Live a little.

            • TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except that what you said was not understood as you intended. Entertaining willful ignorance is not 'living a little '. Be better.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I explained concisely but thoroughly what I meant and the logic made sense. Regardless, ignorance doesn’t enter into a deliberate subversion of conventions.

                You’re just being a crotchety prescriptivist and/or doubling down because you don’t want to admit you’re wrong. YOU be better.

                • TopShelfVanilla@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  While word salad is a lovely side dish to serve with total bullshit none of us is eating what you’re serving up. Your writing smells like a 14 year old’s attempt at intellectual edgy. Chat GPT come up with that for you? Your generation was supposed to be creative and interesting. You are proving yourself to be lazy and boring. Trying to impress strangers on the Internet. How lame can you get?

                  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Dude, chill already. I’m just using language creatively and calmly explaining my reasons for doing so and how it’s a perfectly normal thing to do rather than categorically wrong and an assault on the language itself. Nothing “edgy” about that.

                    Btw, your assumptions are not only extremely ageist, they’re also flat out wrong on every count: I’m 40, not 14, you’re the one being intellectually lazy and boring by stubbornly sticking to an ultra-strict interpretation of etymology, and I’ve never used ChatGPT for anything, let alone for explaining to a blowhard like you how language can be flexible 😂

                    Seems you’re right about being vanilla, but top shelf? Not so much 🙄