This is actually very great

I think there might also be a subcultural difference, too, because there are different types of “tryna” that are used by different groups of people, and maybe being used to a more versatile “tryna” would make “tryna not x” more natural to speak.

Tryna A: “I’m just tryna screw in this lightbulb,” “I’m not tryna hurt you”

Tryna B (expanded tryna, not spoken by everyone, mostly skews younger and bro-ier I think): “You tryna go to Taco Bell right now?” “You tryna chill tomorrow?”

That’s interesting. I feel differently. “Trying not to kill myself” sounds a lot more natural than the split “trying to not kill myself.” “Trying to not kill myself” sounds like internet slang that makes the statement sound awkward on purpose so it’s taken less seriously. But the former format is way more natural to speak.

That’s a very interesting idea. It might also incentivize creators because it gives them a more stable audience that’s at least a little insured against viewership changes on any single platform due to changes in that platform outside of their control.

And you’re ignoring history and the way the parties have always worked when they have the incumbent

Nope, that DID happen. But you are ignoring the obvious reality in this case.

lol, you believe this?

Do I believe that about four months ago the Democratic Party made a desperate move to replace the incumbent candidate and there were very few viable options at the time? Yes, I believe that, because we just went through it about four months ago. It’s pretty much political suicide to withdraw an incumbent candidate. You don’t plan that from the beginning, because that would be a stupid plan. It was very likely “planned” as in “plan B,” but it’s kind of idiotic to think that it was plan A. The primary was not hijacked, the incumbent is always the candidate. Primaries are always a formality for the incumbent party.

They ran Harris because she was the only viable option when it was clear that Biden was not. They did not run Harris thinking she would win at all, they ran her out of desperation because the incumbent was flatlining. It was not a choice, and it certainly was not one based on demographics. It was a “Hail Mary” and it failed as it was likely to do from the outset, and everyone who was paying attention knew that, yet had no choice but to hope for the best.

That’s been a common and roughly true trope for a long time, but I think we may have hit the point where high technology has been ubiquitous for multiple generations now and it’s probably not quite as true as it once was (that the younger generation is always better with technology than the previous)

I don’t disagree with that assessment.

I’m generally on your side of this argument but the number of non-voters is hard to quantify yet clearly had a major effect on the outcome, and a lot of the anti-Harris rhetoric from the left demotivated people into not voting at all (as opposed to voting third party). The third party vote counts are somewhat irrelevant to this line of reasoning.

Do you have a specific rebuke for something I said where you can logically point out where I’m wrong or are you just hand-waving?

How would I know if it is or isn’t different today based on your comment? How am I supposed to answer that question? By asking that, you are asserting that it is different today. Yet you have given no numbers for what it is today for the same countries on that image.

You know that, and you are trying to sidestep me now while accusing me of sidestepping. Why is that? You said in the beginning of your comment:

Americans couldn't find Iraq and Afghanistan on maps during those wars despite the latter lasting 20 Years and Americans being involved in them.

You are saying here that those wars lasted a long time, and one lasted 20 years, and despite that, Americans couldn’t find those countries on maps during those wars. But the data is from the beginning of that time period. So after 20 years yes obviously the numbers would change. But that data doesn’t say that. That data is the starting point. A lazy reader might very easily think that data supported your point. Same as your previous comment I took issue with.

Like I said: “I’d suspect the numbers would still be worse than they should be”

But also, you’re doing it again. You’re saying “despite the latter [Afghanistan] lasting 20 years,” but dude you linked images from 2006. It hadn’t been 20 years yet. In fact, that data is from nearly 20 years ago!

That is, again, extremely misleading data to support the argument you’re making.

Right there with you on that

Do you really think Ukraine being featured prominently in American news, pop culture, political discourse, and zeitgeist in general for the past two and a half years hasn’t affected those numbers? You would not have used Ukraine in this example had it not been for the current conflict. To use numbers from ten years ago is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality.

What do you think being offended means, dude? Because this person you’re replying to is not offended. You ignoring the content of the comments and just hammering on really sounds like you’re offended, though. Because that’s what being offended sounds like.

That article is from ten years ago. I’d suspect the numbers would still be worse than they should be, but Ukraine has become a much bigger situation since then which is why you’re using it in this example, so this is not an accurate picture you’re painting.

It’s even worse on Threads, believe it or not.

X sucks, but Threads is even worse. 99% of everything I have ever seen on Threads is pure distilled engagement bait, and half the time expanding replies gets stuck loading. I wish I were exaggerating, but I’m not.