top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 166 points 2 years ago (13 children)

Hate to be that guy, but it's "Should've" and not "Should of".

Good meme btw

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Which is "should have" when spelt out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Genuine question: is is spelt or spelled, or do both work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Fun fact, related to this: learned and learnt are also both correct. I always assumed learnt was a redneck thing (I'm from the south), but it turns out the Brits use it too. Who knew?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So it’s lingually sound but regionally a redneck thing, then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I've heard it used in a sentence like "When I was a boy, my daddy done learnt me a thing or two about fishin'". Which is why it's associated with southern slang, I think. That's my hypothesis anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Folks in west verginnie use words and phrases carried over from the old days when talkin like brits and Frenchmen was considered fancy, and it’s devolved into hill folk lingo. Yes, it’s technically a dialect but it’s not proper grammar in American English just because some hillfolk and southern drawl says it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Right, I get that it's not grammatically correct in that context, but the word itself is valid. I had always thought "learnt" was akin to "ain't", but that's not the case. Both "learned" and "learnt" are correct, but the latter is less commonly used in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Yea crap you're right, I wish I could correct the title

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    it has been 6 hrs, should of do it by now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hate to be that guy, but it's "should of done" and not "should of do".

    Good comment btw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    slavery is too morally bankrupt to ever have a cool maintainer like the cURL dude

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The only issue with this adaptation of a great comic is that it infers the Confederacy was a well built structure that depended on that one small thing. The Confederacy didn't exist that long, it even didn't have a single flag version for longer than a year or so. Change it to the southern states' economy and it makes more sense.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's... blocks haphazardly balanced. Which is completely the point. Do you think that looks like a "well-built structure"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Slavery was more like the central block two positions upwards from the tiny block indicated. It was their whole reason for secession.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And there should be an even bigger block under it called "Native land and resources that they didn't have gunpowder to defend".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    It was a the death of 90% of the population to small pox within one generation that allowed colonization. The Europeans were dirty and diseased, untrained peasants. Their firearms at that time were inaccurate single shot rifles, that took minutes to reload. Analysis of indigenous bow techniques showed the common capability to accurately shoot multiple arrows in rapid succession.

    And it goes beyond war: Indigenous people didn't farm as Europeans did, we instead cultivated forests with eidble plant species that complimented each other to kept the soil healthy. The forests across the Americas were thousands of years into a cycle of land management that kept grown food naturally abundant and plentiful, without having to clear the land. Indigenous peoples were expert and managing the population of the animals of their areas as well. We understood which members of an animal population should be hunted, and which should be kept for the health of the species. We then knew how to fully utilize every part of the animals hunted. The core of most indigenous cultures rotated around ethical and efficient management of the land's resources. What did the Europeans do? Accidentally gave an entire continent a super virus, then stripped the forests clear to plant shitty crops not made for this climate, and hunted countless animal species to extinction. Europeans were not technologically advanced at all. They were just diseased. That's it.

    Rest assured that without smallpox, the Americas would not have been colonized. Population density and technological differences would have made it too dangerous and expensive an undertaking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    ooof, lots of pent-up frustration here.

    Europeans were not any more "dirty" or "clean" than any other group, also Native Americans adopted the use of fire arms from the Europeans and would generally trade foodstuffs for firearms, in the end you are only repeating the Noble Savage

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    The main advantage of early guns wasn't that they were more powerful, it's that they were easy to use. You can train someone to fire a gun in a day, while it takes months of training just to get an archer strong enough to draw a bow.

    Also the whole "the Europeans were dirty diseased peasants" thing isn't accurate, and I have to say that IMO the right response to racist depictions of indigenous people as unwashed savages isn't to just turn around and say "actually the stereotypes are correct it's just that it's about the Europeans this time".

    And Indigenous people had more advanced technoglogy than many give them credit for but "The Europeans were technologically behind indigenous people in nearly every way. " is just blatantly wrong.

    I do think you're right though that without smallpox and other diseases the Europeans wouldn't have colonised the Americas, though there were several other major factors in it.

    P.S. I'm not a historian, grain of salt, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You maybe would think about industrializing too before you split off..

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    To be fair, they couldn't industrialise before they split off. Their industries wouldn't have been competitive with the well-established ones already existing in the north. Only ways they could become competitive were (a) secede and put up tariffs, or (b) get a huge aid package from the federal government so they can run things at a loss for a few years. And the northern states would not have been happy with (b), so …

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›