Also, even if “people with job X” caught on, that wouldn’t actually achieve anything. The impression or image in your head that you get when you hear “people who work in a factory” vs. “factory workers” is the same, even if the wording deliberately makes reference to people.

I appreciate what the intention is behind it, just like with “people with disabilities” vs. “disabled people”, but it doesn’t address the societal issues that result in the actual discrimination/problematic views.

This is more of a theoretical argument, but from a linguistic perspective there’s a common misconception that language shapes our perception of reality, when in fact it’s the other way round. If you talk about subject X which is looked down on for whatever reason, the commonly used word for it can take on a derogatory tone, which leads to well-meaning people using a more positive word. This is commonly seen with words for women in patriarchal societies, and it leads to a cycle of neutral words becoming derogatory and polite words becoming the new standard, until that word becomes derogatory and has to be replaced in turn. None of this is to say we shouldn’t be careful with the language we use, and in fact it’s a good way of signalling respect, but I just want to highlight that adopting new terminology is itself won’t achieve much.

But if you’ve learned IPA you can read it just fine

Relevant Onion video

I- in the Hague… right?

Yeah, it was Fred. We should thank him more often.

He’s certainly much bigger now, or maybe just extremely flattened

Tautocarcinisation

Bucephoron

I lived in Georgia for a few months and can say without at doubt it is absolutely European. I think it helps that Georgians have very close ties with the rest of eastern Europe. Sadly, given the state of the government at the moment, the road to joining the EU is looking very long and uncertain, but I have hope that it will happen one day.

When the abyss stares back at you, maintain flirty eye contact

Just a reminder that Brexit was a very close referendum and a lot of us would rather have much closer ties to the EU (or just rejoin, but I don’t see that happening any time soon). I was too young to vote at the time, while people like my grandad voted for it and then died and didn’t have to live with the consequences. If I could, I would love to be able to live and work in EU countries and have more people from the EU living here, but we were screwed over by David Cameron, the Brexiteers and of course the ignorant/misinformed voters who voted for it.

Common misconception, it’s just dedicated to one

Sounds about right

You would have to pay me a lot to get me to travel to the US

A jumper is a bad example, because it’s not just made up of sleeves.

A bra is a much better example. But I was never making an argument that all things made up of two parts are referred to as a pair, just my thoughts on the rationale behind cases where we do.

I’d say it’s less of a grammar rule and more about how things made up of two similar parts can be conceptualised

They’re made up of two similar parts which form a pair, unlike a jumper

500g usually