4 ms·

> saying such legislation would be “better from a public safety perspective” According to whom, we the people or a bunch of authoritarians who'd like to be abl

> saying such legislation would be “better from a public safety perspective” According to whom, we the people or a bunch of authoritarians who'd like to be able to access every nook and cranny of our personal lives?

omginternets 9y ago
Forgive me, as this is completely tangential to your point, but it should be "according to whom". A simple explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you-might-think/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-compli... :) Call me silly, but I think grammar is important. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! Edit: lol, I thing I made a typo earlier.
- eliudnir 9y ago
  "I thing" <-- while knocking OP's grammar? Yes, I'm silly too :)
- bamurphymac1 9y ago
  I thing so too, friend.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Thing of this as the logical extension of the analysis "you've got another thing coming". ;D
- averagewall 9y ago
  Can it be ambiguous to only use who instead of whom? If not, then it's probably not important, just feels painful for people who know the rules. That's as much an indictment of the rule itself as it is of people breaking it.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    No, it can't[1]. However, vestigial marking of present-tense third-person-singular verbs is going strong and pretty much nobody considers the fact that it's completely useless as an argument against doing it. The difference is that nearly everyone doesn't know the who/whom rule -- it is dead -- while nearly everyone does know the living pres.3sg rule, and they have trouble violating it even if in the abstract they might like to. [1] The strongest argument in this direction is that no one in the modern day knows what whom means or under what circumstances it appears, meaning that when a whom is encountered it can only make them more confused.
- danaliv 9y ago
  Watch this and get back to us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY
- utternerd 9y ago
  I don't, you're certainly right and I even questioned myself as I wrote it.

omginternets 9y ago

Forgive me, as this is completely tangential to your point, but it should be "according to whom". A simple explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you-might-think/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-compli... :) Call me silly, but I think grammar is important. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! Edit: lol, I thing I made a typo earlier.

eliudnir 9y ago
"I thing" <-- while knocking OP's grammar? Yes, I'm silly too :)
bamurphymac1 9y ago
I thing so too, friend.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Thing of this as the logical extension of the analysis "you've got another thing coming". ;D
averagewall 9y ago
Can it be ambiguous to only use who instead of whom? If not, then it's probably not important, just feels painful for people who know the rules. That's as much an indictment of the rule itself as it is of people breaking it.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  No, it can't[1]. However, vestigial marking of present-tense third-person-singular verbs is going strong and pretty much nobody considers the fact that it's completely useless as an argument against doing it. The difference is that nearly everyone doesn't know the who/whom rule -- it is dead -- while nearly everyone does know the living pres.3sg rule, and they have trouble violating it even if in the abstract they might like to. [1] The strongest argument in this direction is that no one in the modern day knows what whom means or under what circumstances it appears, meaning that when a whom is encountered it can only make them more confused.
danaliv 9y ago
Watch this and get back to us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY
utternerd 9y ago
I don't, you're certainly right and I even questioned myself as I wrote it.