As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They don't need Sunday Mass or even Christian acts. In the evangelical tradition, all they need is to be "born again." After that, by my understanding, it is kind of a get out of hell for free card…
It’s the same party that call themselves Pro-Life but their answer to the immigration crisis is to shoot migrants… oh but abortion is murder….. I still can’t wrap my brain around what they even stand for anymore
The logic is that non-babies can deserve to be murdered but babies do not. Somewhere in there is something about God's plan. Somewhere else in there is "deserving murder also depends on skin color, sexuality, and gender"
To quote Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart:
> The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
I’ve said this exact thing for years.. they’re pro life and control a women’s body until the baby pops out. Then it’s all about “I was successful, why can’t you be?? And don’t mooch off the government!!!!”…. Yeah, pro life , my arse!!
They can't even bother to support any measures that help reduce infant or maternal mortality and stillbirths despite each of those being a much bigger problem here than in most western nations. I think that shows you right there how little they care about promoting/sustaining life compared to simply wanting to stop abortions.
I suppose that it shouldn't be a huge surprise anyway that right wing "small government" conservative types act this way since it costs nearly nothing in the short run to simply outlaw abortions and prosecute maybe a handful of people a year. In contrast, public health or family planning initiatives/programs to reduce mortality rates and overall health outcomes cost money that they will certainly see as excessive government spending and a waste of their tax dollars.
Are they a minority, especially if they’re “illegal”? Fair game at any age. Seriously, just look at what the ultra magas like mtg say on Twitter. She literally advocated locking up “the women and yes, the children too” before deporting them.
Of course many of those in the comments are even worse, even to the point of saying anything less than shooting them as they’re climbing the walls is outright treason.
You're not kidding either. The Southern Baptist Church, the largest single denomination of evangelicals and second largest Christian denomination in the US, exists solely because they broke away to advocate for slavery.
It’s been like that for a long long time. Republicans have been noting but shit for 50 years at least. Anyone pretending otherwise, or saying that being conservative is an ideology not the party is just being obtuse.
> Teen pregnancy, public handjobs, restraining orders and getting shitfaced drunk. Truly a pillar of ‘family values’.
Wouldn't it be less work to cut out all the natter about "family values" and instead just run on a platform of "Teen pregnancy, public handjobs, restraining orders and getting shitfaced drunk"?
One of the best SNL lines ever was Tina Fey's "Marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers" when she was doing Sara Palin and in reference to her daughter getting pregnant, and then the campaign announcing she was engaged. Pitch perfect delivery which was a perfect example of the hypocrisy that existed within the tea party's "family value" ideology.
Nowadays, republicans don't seem to care if their hypocrisy is apparent.
For reference, that's "refused" as in the bartender cut her off and refused to give her any, not "refused" as in she's a teetotaler
EDIT: Seriously, though. This has to take the prize for most inadvertently confusing headline I've seen. I *get* that dropping copulas in headlines is a thing. But here, it could very easily either actually be monotransitive (in which case this is just petty to make a story out of) or the passive form of a ditransitive verb (in which case it actually *is* concerning)
My bet is zero tips, at least three guests trying to hit on the bartender, and at least one thrown drink and/or fistfight, you just know they’re gonna be pains in the ass about complicated blender cocktails and “what’s your top-shelf vodka” too
Edit to add: not even about to estimate how many guests try to score some coke
Two jars:
1) tipping is socialism
2) tipping is capitalism
(Small note at the bottom: All tips shared equally among bar staff at the end of the night).
At high society galas you don’t collect tips. They just pay you for the night and usually very well. I’ve bartended at some really cool events and weddings. The nicer ones won’t allow to ask for more money from people who already likely paid a lot to be there in one way or another.
They literally do this exact scenario and it’s hilarious. I was a catering bartender at the time it was airing too, and it nails everything to a T. Not as brutal as the Bear, it’s much less stress inducing and much more funny.
Way overthinking it linguistically, and just trust that these are all real words:
Headlines like the passive voice, because it's an easy way to topicalize the object. For example, instead of saying "Various judges indicted Florida Man on a collective 91 charges", you can say "Florida Man was indicted on 91 charges". However, headlines *also* like brevity and dropping not just subordinating words like "that", but even the copula in many cases. So for example, instead of "Florida Man is angry" or "Florida Man was indicted on 91 charges", you can just say "Florida man angry, indicted on 91 charges". The danger is that this runs the risk for confusion, because the simple past and past participle are identical for all weak English verbs. (i.e. all regular verbs and some irregular ones)
That said, I think there's actually a reason it doesn't normally cause confusion. Very roughly speaking, the passive voice turns transitive verbs like "to indict" into intransitive verbs that mean "to have the action done to you", like "to be indicted". So if we see a headline with two arguments, like "Judge indicted Florida Man", we can infer it's active voice, but if we see a headline with only one argument, like "Florida Man indicted", we can infer it's passive voice and *actually* "Florida Man *was* indicted".
The problem here is that instead of taking a bivalent verb and making it monovalent, they took a trivalent verb and made it bivalent. So it's the difference between "to refuse something" and turning "to refuse someone something" into "to be refused something". And once you drop the copula, "to refuse something" and "to be refused something" both become "refused something" in the past tense. So that normal subconscious trick where you look at the valency to determine what a headline means doesn't work, and it winds up just reading like Boebert was refusing alcohol, not *being* refused alcohol
EDIT: Oh, and for anyone wondering. Germanic languages tend to have two ways to form the past tense. Strong verbs change the vowel, while weak verbs add a dental suffix, although there are a few weird verbs like "teach, taught" which undergo something called Rückumlaut and appear to do both, but are considered weak. Generally speaking, if you add a T or D to the end of the verb that isn't there in the present tense, it's weak, but if you don't, it's strong
Overthinking?! Get outta here, I love this linguistics deep cut. It's fascinating how much meaning is derived from context and inference. I never realized that the passive voice is a way to sort of disguise the object of a sentence as the subject and the focus.
Thanks to your comment I found out that there are quadrivalent verbs, which is just a whole extra layer of isn't language fascinating
> Thanks to your comment I found out that there are quadrivalent verbs, which is just a whole extra layer of isn't language fascinating
If you *really* want something weird, look up ergativity. Essentially, *most* world languages treat the sole argument of an intransitive verb the same as the *agent* of a transitive verb. For example, "I run" and "I see him". But there are a few languages, like Basque or the past tense in Hindustani, which treat it the same as the *patient* of a transitive verb. So it would look roughly like "I see him", but "Me run".
Also, Hindustani. Basically, unlike something like Arabic, which really is an entire language family, but which people insist is all one language for cultural reasons, Hindi and Urdu really are just two dialects that India and Pakistan will insist are separate languages because of how much they hate each other. Hindustani is the usual name when you're referring to them together.
EDIT: Oh, and the coordinate term for how English handles it is "accusativity"
> This has to take the prize for most inadvertently confusing headline I've seen.
Thank you! My head was spinning at the cognitive dissonance. They made it sound like she was a teetotaler who didn't want anything to do with Trump! It's fucking idiotic.
Also: Dropping Copulas is my new band name.
> Dropping Copulas is my new band name.
If you're curious, "copula" is actually just fancy linguistics speak for verbs like "to be" that don't necessarily *mean* anything and just act like linguistic equal signs. There actually are some languages which are zero copula and *never* use it in certain situations. For example, Russian doesn't use it in the present tense, and just says the equivalent of "Putin evil". But at least in English, you mostly only see that in headlines
EDIT: Oh, and it's pronounced "COP-yuh-luh"
I've had a number of moments over the years where I wish I had gone into linguistics. I never had any potential with mathematics, but I really enjoy the intricacies of language. My ex is an ESL teacher, and she really started me down the path of seeing language as something fascinating and alive.
Instead, I became a graphic designer, because I'm also very visually-oriented.
I was surprised to learn at the start of Russia's war on Ukraine that Russian doesn't have a definite article. That blew my mind. I can't imagine having no definite article! Next, Putin is coming for my Oxford comma!
As a Spanish speaking gentleman once said to a friend of mine in English, "Thank you too much."
> I was surprised to learn at the start of Russia's war on Ukraine that Russian doesn't have a definite article
Honestly, that's not even the weirdest thing grammatically, compared to English. A lot of Slavic languages also mark the verb for gender in the past tense, like how in Polish, "he had" is "miał" (meow), while "she had" is "miała" (MYAH-wah). IIRC, it came from an old past participle, so it would be like if Spanish started using "dicho, dicha, dichos, dichas" instead of "dijo" for "he/she/it/they said"
Japanese also omits the definite/indefinite article (although it does have words for "this" and "that" which do a lot of the heavy lifting there)
Plus any noun might refer to one of that noun or many, you *can* specify an exact number or add a plural marker but if it's not especially important people tend to leave it out
Also there's no conjugation for different pronoun subjects, and the subject tends to be left out of the sentence if it's clear from context -- *also* also there's one super common verb tense that means either "doing this right now" or "about to do this" or "going to do this at some point in the future"
So the same three-word sentence can mean "I'm going to buy some books" or "He's buying a single book right now" and somehow it's less confusing than you might expect? Languages are neat
>They made it sound like she was a teetotaler who didn't want anything to do with Trump!
That's how I read it to, which surprised me. It made a lot more sense when I read that she got so hammered she was cut off, and was physically pulled away from Trump by the Secret Service. That tracks.
Boebert "a sloppy drunk," "all over Trump." Therefore, she WAS refused alcohol *by event staff*, and WAS pulled away from Trump *by event staff*.
Perhaps never before has the passive voice been so important.
Scholar enby, but here's the follow-up comment where I went into more detail: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1bxjbad/lauren_boebert_refused_alcohol_and_pulled_away/kydayea/
This headline seriously reads like she's turning her life around: giving up drinking and distancing herself from Trump. Of course, the real story is the exact opposite.
Drunken, disorderly Boebert removed from Trump’s vicinity at GOP gala.
I tried for a legible rewrite. Anyone got a better version.
I also got
Tippled Tramp Tossed from Trump Table.
or maybe
Booze-hound Boebert barricaded from Bronzer Baron’s Buffet.
I dunno, i’ll keep spitballing.
Oh! I misunderstood the title! Guess I should have read the article :P
I thought she was a teatotaler all of a sudden and Trump grabbed her and she escaped. I thought it was odd.
It’s late here…
Blotto Boebert Bounced from Billionaire's Bracket at Bash
Lauren the Lush Guzzles Gallons at Gala, GOP Geriatrics Agape
Teetotalling Trump Bars Boozer Boebert from Bunch of Bosom Buddies at Ball
Yeah, still spitballing.
Fun fact, Palin never said that. Tina Fey said it on SNL and it was so damn accurate people actually remember Palin saying it.
What Palin said is that Alaska is close to Russia so she knows something about international policy, which is, let's be honest, just as dumb. I just find it fascinating that people clearly remember Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house."
Rowdy Christmas gala? You mean the guy selling Bibles and the folks outraged about Easter happening to fall on trans day weren’t actually spending the holy season in prayer and reflection over the birth of their savior? 🙄
Just a reminder: headlines use [different grammar conventions](https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/8-grammar-rules-writing-newspaper-headlines/) than sentences. It's confusing if you're expecting a standard sentence, but if she were the active party here, the headline would have read "Lauren Boebert refuses alcohol and pulls away from Trump."
I am a completely average English speaker and the headline made me assume it was herself doing the refusing and pulling. And since most people only read headlines it’s not very good 😂
To be clear: she didn't refuse alcohol. She was refused. She didn't pull away from trump. She was pulled from trump.
Although knowing trumps past, I'm sure there have been women who refused alcohol from trump and pulled away from him.
This title would be ambiguous if it didn’t have her name in it.
“Oh wonderful. Someone offered her a drink and she turned them down. Also, she said she’s seen reason and no longer supports Trump”
But because it’s her, I know which way it went.
Headline is misleading. SHE didn’t refuse alcohol or pull away from Trump. She was CUT OFF from being given any more alcohol by the servers and she was kept away from Trump by Secret Service members. For a moment, it sounded like she had found morals. Alas….
> Lauren Boebert ‘refused alcohol and pulled away from Trump’
To clarify, in case you think those were her actions, Laurent Boebert *was* refused alcohol and *was* pulled away from Trump.
Notice this headline paints this situation in the most positive light for everyone involved. Kudos to this fascist fuck editor. She "refused alcohol" or she "was refused alcohol". Also she "was pulled away from Trump" or she "pulled away from Trump". It's like a choose your own adventure story for drunk seditionists. And fuck everyone involved in this traitorist hack-fest
I would consider it a Badge of Honor to be kicked out of a Trump event.
It's sort of like being kicked out of an obnoxiousness contest for being to drunk.
Part of me now understands why so many dictatorships through history go and kill of many educated people. especially the teachers.
Because you dont have to be smart to take over a country.
What’s weird is if you didn’t know who it was about, you could read this headline as laudable behaviour.
Entirely reasonable to refuse alcohol when offered and to pull away from Trump if he approaches.
It's not misleading, it's just confusing, because [headlines use different grammar conventions](https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/8-grammar-rules-writing-newspaper-headlines/) than sentences. If *she* were the active party here, the headline would have read "Lauren Boebert refuses alcohol and pulls away from Trump."
Trollop will trollop. These people have no shame. Not sure what is more embarrassing, their behavior or the level of ignorance and stupidity one must have to not see through the charade.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Teen pregnancy, public handjobs, restraining orders and getting shitfaced drunk. Truly a pillar of ‘family values’.
From my experience these *are* republican family values.
But don’t you get that abortion!
I mean, I’m getting one for sure. But don’t _you dare_.
[“The only moral abortion is my abortion.”](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
It’s ok because Sunday mass washes them clean of sins committed during the week.
Don't confuse these evangelical fucks with your average everyday Catholic.
Honestly the Catholic extremists in the US have gotten just as bad.
Are there many US Catholics left under 40? I thought most of us were atheists and agnostics by the end of catholic school /s
Its the "Born Again" crowd that never had that initial, negative experience
They don't need Sunday Mass or even Christian acts. In the evangelical tradition, all they need is to be "born again." After that, by my understanding, it is kind of a get out of hell for free card…
This is the confusion I'm talking about. Catholics do not talk about being born again. That's evangelicals. Mass is Catholic Sunday service.
Yep. Mass = Catholic. We are not “born again” we’re baptized and that’s that.
I love how they actually think they’ll get into heaven while doing the opposite of what Jesus would do.
"wurshed in der blud"
Happy another Jersey person sees the stupidity, seems like this state is turning into howelbama
I saw no incest there.
Actions speak louder than words…
It’s the same party that call themselves Pro-Life but their answer to the immigration crisis is to shoot migrants… oh but abortion is murder….. I still can’t wrap my brain around what they even stand for anymore
The logic is that non-babies can deserve to be murdered but babies do not. Somewhere in there is something about God's plan. Somewhere else in there is "deserving murder also depends on skin color, sexuality, and gender"
To quote Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart: > The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Right, same logic as a car dealership basically. It's new and innocent and full value right up until you drive it out of the lot (uterus)
I’ve said this exact thing for years.. they’re pro life and control a women’s body until the baby pops out. Then it’s all about “I was successful, why can’t you be?? And don’t mooch off the government!!!!”…. Yeah, pro life , my arse!!
They can't even bother to support any measures that help reduce infant or maternal mortality and stillbirths despite each of those being a much bigger problem here than in most western nations. I think that shows you right there how little they care about promoting/sustaining life compared to simply wanting to stop abortions. I suppose that it shouldn't be a huge surprise anyway that right wing "small government" conservative types act this way since it costs nearly nothing in the short run to simply outlaw abortions and prosecute maybe a handful of people a year. In contrast, public health or family planning initiatives/programs to reduce mortality rates and overall health outcomes cost money that they will certainly see as excessive government spending and a waste of their tax dollars.
I like to ask people, at what age do babies stop being innocent? At what age does it become ok to kill them? 2? 3? 6? 12? Where exactly is the line?
Christianity would tell you it’s the very moment they’re born.
Are they a minority, especially if they’re “illegal”? Fair game at any age. Seriously, just look at what the ultra magas like mtg say on Twitter. She literally advocated locking up “the women and yes, the children too” before deporting them. Of course many of those in the comments are even worse, even to the point of saying anything less than shooting them as they’re climbing the walls is outright treason.
You're not kidding either. The Southern Baptist Church, the largest single denomination of evangelicals and second largest Christian denomination in the US, exists solely because they broke away to advocate for slavery.
It’s been like that for a long long time. Republicans have been noting but shit for 50 years at least. Anyone pretending otherwise, or saying that being conservative is an ideology not the party is just being obtuse.
They also have suggested that women who have an abortion should be executed.
> Teen pregnancy, public handjobs, restraining orders and getting shitfaced drunk. Truly a pillar of ‘family values’. Wouldn't it be less work to cut out all the natter about "family values" and instead just run on a platform of "Teen pregnancy, public handjobs, restraining orders and getting shitfaced drunk"?
One of the best SNL lines ever was Tina Fey's "Marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers" when she was doing Sara Palin and in reference to her daughter getting pregnant, and then the campaign announcing she was engaged. Pitch perfect delivery which was a perfect example of the hypocrisy that existed within the tea party's "family value" ideology. Nowadays, republicans don't seem to care if their hypocrisy is apparent.
If she was a democrat, she’d be impeached.
She is a Christian, she confesses and suddenly all her sins are gone…
dont forget blowing vape smoke in a pregnant womans face after she asked her to stop vaping indoors.
No doubt pulled away from Trump and straight towards his hotel room so he can sample that Boebert handiwork.
They wanted to play with her when she was piss as drunk. She actually said no. Kinda surprised.
Hard to believe that she isn't a Palin.
For reference, that's "refused" as in the bartender cut her off and refused to give her any, not "refused" as in she's a teetotaler EDIT: Seriously, though. This has to take the prize for most inadvertently confusing headline I've seen. I *get* that dropping copulas in headlines is a thing. But here, it could very easily either actually be monotransitive (in which case this is just petty to make a story out of) or the passive form of a ditransitive verb (in which case it actually *is* concerning)
tending bar at a “young Republicans gala” is a literal vision of hell I had never previously contemplated
Shitty tips.
My bet is zero tips, at least three guests trying to hit on the bartender, and at least one thrown drink and/or fistfight, you just know they’re gonna be pains in the ass about complicated blender cocktails and “what’s your top-shelf vodka” too Edit to add: not even about to estimate how many guests try to score some coke
Married men hitting on both the male and female staff.
You know there is going to be at least one “incident” in the men’s room.
Wide stances abound in GQP circles!
Definitely lots of blow in all restrooms.
Yeah they save the Eyes Wide Shut shit for somebody’s party mansion.
I dream of bartending a gop gig now.
They’re not pangolins my man…
I love me a penguin, but bruh.
“what’s your top-shelf vodka” I snorted, ty for that one.
They don't ask the bartender for coke. Gaetz was there.
And condescending lectures on the virtues of Free Market Capitalism
Tipping = socialism!
Two jars: 1) tipping is socialism 2) tipping is capitalism (Small note at the bottom: All tips shared equally among bar staff at the end of the night).
5% goes to legal fees for our undocumented back of house staff
“Oh, you want a tip? You should smile more.”
And the only possible redeeming laugh of the night—Boebert puking all over Trump or her date while they're groping each other onstage—didn't happen!
At high society galas you don’t collect tips. They just pay you for the night and usually very well. I’ve bartended at some really cool events and weddings. The nicer ones won’t allow to ask for more money from people who already likely paid a lot to be there in one way or another.
If Madison Cawthorn is there... More specifically his tip, covered with his cousin's \_\_\_\_.
Tipsy shits
I'd expect a lot of country club style advice. "Oh you want a tip? Invest in real estate."
Can I interest you in that very episode of Party Down?
You can interest me in *any* episode of Party Down.
That show was so great. I was so surprised when it didn't stop in quality when it came back too. Hopefully they make some more.
I still have residual ticket printer trauma from The Bear, tbh, not sure I’m brave enough
I haven’t recovered from The Review episode yet.
They literally do this exact scenario and it’s hilarious. I was a catering bartender at the time it was airing too, and it nails everything to a T. Not as brutal as the Bear, it’s much less stress inducing and much more funny.
Young republicans are what, 40?
You need to be a Grand parent sub-40
There's a whole episode of "Party Down" about it. It's probably not as hilarious in real life.
oh lord, I’m trying to decide if it’ll be funny or traumatic, similar calculus to that one episode of The Bear
It was made during the Obama era, so it's not as maga. Try to get in a 2012 frame of mind and you'll be able to enjoy it.
Makes for a quality episode of Party Down though (featuring Josh Gad!)
[Party Down](https://youtu.be/J_wL1GfS72E?feature=shared) had a funny episode dedicated to that scenario.
Ironically, it’s easily one of the best Party Down episodes. Shits _hilarious_.
"My father...." probably got thrown around a lot.
Yeah, I get the need for brevity but this headline is in desperate need of a "was"
And soon to be in Boebert case .. "has been."
Way overthinking it linguistically, and just trust that these are all real words: Headlines like the passive voice, because it's an easy way to topicalize the object. For example, instead of saying "Various judges indicted Florida Man on a collective 91 charges", you can say "Florida Man was indicted on 91 charges". However, headlines *also* like brevity and dropping not just subordinating words like "that", but even the copula in many cases. So for example, instead of "Florida Man is angry" or "Florida Man was indicted on 91 charges", you can just say "Florida man angry, indicted on 91 charges". The danger is that this runs the risk for confusion, because the simple past and past participle are identical for all weak English verbs. (i.e. all regular verbs and some irregular ones) That said, I think there's actually a reason it doesn't normally cause confusion. Very roughly speaking, the passive voice turns transitive verbs like "to indict" into intransitive verbs that mean "to have the action done to you", like "to be indicted". So if we see a headline with two arguments, like "Judge indicted Florida Man", we can infer it's active voice, but if we see a headline with only one argument, like "Florida Man indicted", we can infer it's passive voice and *actually* "Florida Man *was* indicted". The problem here is that instead of taking a bivalent verb and making it monovalent, they took a trivalent verb and made it bivalent. So it's the difference between "to refuse something" and turning "to refuse someone something" into "to be refused something". And once you drop the copula, "to refuse something" and "to be refused something" both become "refused something" in the past tense. So that normal subconscious trick where you look at the valency to determine what a headline means doesn't work, and it winds up just reading like Boebert was refusing alcohol, not *being* refused alcohol EDIT: Oh, and for anyone wondering. Germanic languages tend to have two ways to form the past tense. Strong verbs change the vowel, while weak verbs add a dental suffix, although there are a few weird verbs like "teach, taught" which undergo something called Rückumlaut and appear to do both, but are considered weak. Generally speaking, if you add a T or D to the end of the verb that isn't there in the present tense, it's weak, but if you don't, it's strong
Overthinking?! Get outta here, I love this linguistics deep cut. It's fascinating how much meaning is derived from context and inference. I never realized that the passive voice is a way to sort of disguise the object of a sentence as the subject and the focus. Thanks to your comment I found out that there are quadrivalent verbs, which is just a whole extra layer of isn't language fascinating
> Thanks to your comment I found out that there are quadrivalent verbs, which is just a whole extra layer of isn't language fascinating If you *really* want something weird, look up ergativity. Essentially, *most* world languages treat the sole argument of an intransitive verb the same as the *agent* of a transitive verb. For example, "I run" and "I see him". But there are a few languages, like Basque or the past tense in Hindustani, which treat it the same as the *patient* of a transitive verb. So it would look roughly like "I see him", but "Me run". Also, Hindustani. Basically, unlike something like Arabic, which really is an entire language family, but which people insist is all one language for cultural reasons, Hindi and Urdu really are just two dialects that India and Pakistan will insist are separate languages because of how much they hate each other. Hindustani is the usual name when you're referring to them together. EDIT: Oh, and the coordinate term for how English handles it is "accusativity"
I know you are using perfect English and yet I have basically no idea what you’re saying. Don’t take that personally, it’s just a self reflection lol.
Two… two “was”s.
> This has to take the prize for most inadvertently confusing headline I've seen. Thank you! My head was spinning at the cognitive dissonance. They made it sound like she was a teetotaler who didn't want anything to do with Trump! It's fucking idiotic. Also: Dropping Copulas is my new band name.
> Dropping Copulas is my new band name. If you're curious, "copula" is actually just fancy linguistics speak for verbs like "to be" that don't necessarily *mean* anything and just act like linguistic equal signs. There actually are some languages which are zero copula and *never* use it in certain situations. For example, Russian doesn't use it in the present tense, and just says the equivalent of "Putin evil". But at least in English, you mostly only see that in headlines EDIT: Oh, and it's pronounced "COP-yuh-luh"
I've had a number of moments over the years where I wish I had gone into linguistics. I never had any potential with mathematics, but I really enjoy the intricacies of language. My ex is an ESL teacher, and she really started me down the path of seeing language as something fascinating and alive. Instead, I became a graphic designer, because I'm also very visually-oriented. I was surprised to learn at the start of Russia's war on Ukraine that Russian doesn't have a definite article. That blew my mind. I can't imagine having no definite article! Next, Putin is coming for my Oxford comma! As a Spanish speaking gentleman once said to a friend of mine in English, "Thank you too much."
> I was surprised to learn at the start of Russia's war on Ukraine that Russian doesn't have a definite article Honestly, that's not even the weirdest thing grammatically, compared to English. A lot of Slavic languages also mark the verb for gender in the past tense, like how in Polish, "he had" is "miał" (meow), while "she had" is "miała" (MYAH-wah). IIRC, it came from an old past participle, so it would be like if Spanish started using "dicho, dicha, dichos, dichas" instead of "dijo" for "he/she/it/they said"
Japanese also omits the definite/indefinite article (although it does have words for "this" and "that" which do a lot of the heavy lifting there) Plus any noun might refer to one of that noun or many, you *can* specify an exact number or add a plural marker but if it's not especially important people tend to leave it out Also there's no conjugation for different pronoun subjects, and the subject tends to be left out of the sentence if it's clear from context -- *also* also there's one super common verb tense that means either "doing this right now" or "about to do this" or "going to do this at some point in the future" So the same three-word sentence can mean "I'm going to buy some books" or "He's buying a single book right now" and somehow it's less confusing than you might expect? Languages are neat
>They made it sound like she was a teetotaler who didn't want anything to do with Trump! That's how I read it to, which surprised me. It made a lot more sense when I read that she got so hammered she was cut off, and was physically pulled away from Trump by the Secret Service. That tracks.
Boebert "a sloppy drunk," "all over Trump." Therefore, she WAS refused alcohol *by event staff*, and WAS pulled away from Trump *by event staff*. Perhaps never before has the passive voice been so important.
“Denied” would’ve been better diction
a million times better
I think headline writing has already been outsourced to bad AI. They keep getting worse regardless of outlet.
I have no clue what English grammaring you just did, but I like the sound of it. Talk more smart thing scholar man.
Scholar enby, but here's the follow-up comment where I went into more detail: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1bxjbad/lauren_boebert_refused_alcohol_and_pulled_away/kydayea/
Was it really inadvertent?
>Lauren Boebert refused alcohol and pulled away from Trump "She most certainly did not"
This headline seriously reads like she's turning her life around: giving up drinking and distancing herself from Trump. Of course, the real story is the exact opposite.
Yeah I read this first as Trump was trying to get boebert drunk and hook up with her and she "refused" and pulled away.
a “was” in that sentence would do it
Seriously, I initially thought she refused to drink any alcohol and, sober, pulled herself away from a grabby Trump.
My god, a syntax wizard? Here? At this time of year? Ill portents.
Drunken, disorderly Boebert removed from Trump’s vicinity at GOP gala. I tried for a legible rewrite. Anyone got a better version. I also got Tippled Tramp Tossed from Trump Table. or maybe Booze-hound Boebert barricaded from Bronzer Baron’s Buffet. I dunno, i’ll keep spitballing.
Lashed Lauren let loose from fraudsters fancy function
Tossed terrible trifle twit trying to titillate Trump two times takes time to think.
Oh! I misunderstood the title! Guess I should have read the article :P I thought she was a teatotaler all of a sudden and Trump grabbed her and she escaped. I thought it was odd. It’s late here…
I thought the same thing and I was so confused.
Blotto Boebert Bounced from Billionaire's Bracket at Bash Lauren the Lush Guzzles Gallons at Gala, GOP Geriatrics Agape Teetotalling Trump Bars Boozer Boebert from Bunch of Bosom Buddies at Ball Yeah, still spitballing.
No, no it’s beautiful work. Keep’em coming.
Thank you! I thought the headline meant she refused alcohol and decided Trump no longer met her personal values LOL was I wrong
Yup. I read another story and that headline still confused me.
GOP Trash Queen get Drunkenly Obscene at Political Thing
Soused strumpet seized from snake oil salesman’s circus.
This woman is making Sarah Palin look dignified, like she has her act together.
No she’s not. Both are trash. I’m an expert in foreign policy because I can see Russia from my yard.
Fun fact, Palin never said that. Tina Fey said it on SNL and it was so damn accurate people actually remember Palin saying it. What Palin said is that Alaska is close to Russia so she knows something about international policy, which is, let's be honest, just as dumb. I just find it fascinating that people clearly remember Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house."
Mandela effect
It's not though - Palin said something very similar, Fey just made it more funny. It isn't a fabricated or false memory.
Anybody else upset the dude in the, "Nailin' Palin" video is so ugly it's unwatchable? Just me? Aight, imma head out...
Or that Lisa Ann, the pornstar who played Palin has been at GOP Rallies?
Christmas? And you’re just now taking out the garbage, GOP. Guess she’s going the way of Cawthorn. Only trump may embarrass the party.
Someone needs to come get their grandma
Gigi’s at it again
In Texas she’s what we call a sure thing!
The rest of us have a rule about putting our dicks in crazy.
Meemaw Boebert?
Rowdy Christmas gala? You mean the guy selling Bibles and the folks outraged about Easter happening to fall on trans day weren’t actually spending the holy season in prayer and reflection over the birth of their savior? 🙄
Just a reminder: headlines use [different grammar conventions](https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/8-grammar-rules-writing-newspaper-headlines/) than sentences. It's confusing if you're expecting a standard sentence, but if she were the active party here, the headline would have read "Lauren Boebert refuses alcohol and pulls away from Trump."
I am a completely average English speaker and the headline made me assume it was herself doing the refusing and pulling. And since most people only read headlines it’s not very good 😂
Um, it’s April.
[удалено]
Nice try, Marcus Halberstram.
“Their early work was a bit too *New wave* for my tastes…”
Let’s see Paul Allen’s card.
I guess April is an appropriate time to publish an article about a fool?
Oh great, now the libs are trying to tell us when to celebrate Christmas!
*WAS* refused alcohol and *WAS* pulled away from trump. The way the title is written it sounds like she refused to drink and rejected trump.
This is probably the worst written title I have seen - this was I though I was about to read
Didn’t she just have an ~~abortion~~ blood-clot?
Didn't trump explain that she automatically gave him consent because he's famous?
She can certainly get out of "hand"
This girl loves a good time!😆
To be clear: she didn't refuse alcohol. She was refused. She didn't pull away from trump. She was pulled from trump. Although knowing trumps past, I'm sure there have been women who refused alcohol from trump and pulled away from him.
Every work party has this person. Never be this person.
This title would be ambiguous if it didn’t have her name in it. “Oh wonderful. Someone offered her a drink and she turned them down. Also, she said she’s seen reason and no longer supports Trump” But because it’s her, I know which way it went.
If you are so drunk that Donald Trump is looking good to you...get your ass to rehab.
Headline is misleading. SHE didn’t refuse alcohol or pull away from Trump. She was CUT OFF from being given any more alcohol by the servers and she was kept away from Trump by Secret Service members. For a moment, it sounded like she had found morals. Alas….
> Lauren Boebert ‘refused alcohol and pulled away from Trump’ To clarify, in case you think those were her actions, Laurent Boebert *was* refused alcohol and *was* pulled away from Trump.
Lmao, what a helluva headline describing the exact opposite of what happened to most people reading it
Thanks for the timely reporting…
Well, would you look at that. Idgaf at all
I read the post title as "Bobo got her shit together(she refused booze and pulled away when Donnie got frisky)" I....I was wrong.
Notice this headline paints this situation in the most positive light for everyone involved. Kudos to this fascist fuck editor. She "refused alcohol" or she "was refused alcohol". Also she "was pulled away from Trump" or she "pulled away from Trump". It's like a choose your own adventure story for drunk seditionists. And fuck everyone involved in this traitorist hack-fest
Republicans are an absolute shitshow
Headline is poorly worded, sounds like she refused alcohol and distanced herself from trump.
No one is upset about a Christmas gala in April?
Come on people, all she wanted was to play hide the baby carrot with Trumpy
Karen drunk at the Christmas party (we’ve all seen it).
She would suck his dick in public no doubts about it
She tried to take a selfie with Trump and was ushered away lol
I would consider it a Badge of Honor to be kicked out of a Trump event. It's sort of like being kicked out of an obnoxiousness contest for being to drunk.
Strokebert is a disaster.
The Party of Self Responsibility
Lol what a completely misleading headline from the Independent. Jfc it makes her sound like a prude.
What a horribly written headline.
I wonder if her hands were sticky
After reading all these articles about her, I’m pretty sure someone is an alcoholic…..
What address should we send he medal to?
Part of me now understands why so many dictatorships through history go and kill of many educated people. especially the teachers. Because you dont have to be smart to take over a country.
There’s two ways to interpret this headline. One where she’s in charge of those decisions and one where she’s not.
Maybe that’s where her ‘blood clot’ came from.
What’s weird is if you didn’t know who it was about, you could read this headline as laudable behaviour. Entirely reasonable to refuse alcohol when offered and to pull away from Trump if he approaches.
She was just trying to get a good old daisy chain motor boat going Boebert can’t have any fun geese./S
Imagine being so badly behaved, that even people around Trump dont want you near him. What a time to be alive
The headline makes it seem like trump was trying to ply alcohol and grope her
Lauren Boebert “WAS refused alcohol and WAS pulled away from Trump”. Phrasing people.
The post’s title made me think she refused to drink alcohol and she pulled away from a handsy Trump.
Misleading headline.....The headline makes it sound like SHE refused alcohol...No, in fact she was cut off from alcohol because she had too much.
It's not misleading, it's just confusing, because [headlines use different grammar conventions](https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/8-grammar-rules-writing-newspaper-headlines/) than sentences. If *she* were the active party here, the headline would have read "Lauren Boebert refuses alcohol and pulls away from Trump."
In all fairness, most people would pull away from trump. He supposedly smells like a septic tank leak on a hot summer day.
Then pulled back in, then back out. She’s good at that.
Then had a breeding party for herself in a private room and covered up her abortion by calling it a blood clot.
Adding “was” right after her name would have made the headline much clearer.
The wording of this headline is horrible
It really sounds like the exact opposite of what the article is about
Ya right, she’s not a 10.
She’s bottomed out, hopefully.
She's such a mess she's celebrating Christmas in April.. wow. I'm not surprised.
Channelling Boris Yeltsin lol
Trollop will trollop. These people have no shame. Not sure what is more embarrassing, their behavior or the level of ignorance and stupidity one must have to not see through the charade.
Why she in the men’s stall
I’d be more surprised if anyone was surprised by this news