English sentences fixer

What is decisive is not that man frees himself to himself from previous obligations, but that the very essence of man itself changes, in that man becomes subject. We must understand this word subiectum, however, as the translation of the Greek hypokeimenon. The word names that-which-lies-before, which, as ground, gathers everything onto itself. This metaphysical meaning of the concept of subject has first of all no special relationship to man and none at all to the I. However, when man becomes the primary and only real subiectum, that means: Man becomes that being upon which all that is, is grounded as regards the manner of its Being and its truth. Man becomes the relational center of that which is as such. But this is possible only when the comprehension of what is as a whole changes. In what does this change manifest itself? What, in keeping with it, is the essence of the modern age?
When we reflect on the modern age, we are questioning concerned the modern world picture [Weltbild] *12. We characterize the latter by throwing it into relief over against the medieval and the ancient world pictures. But why do we ask concerning a world picture in our interpreting of a historical age? Does every period of history have its world picture, and indeed in such a way as to concern itself from time to time about that world picture? Or is this, after all, only a modern kind of representing, this asking concerning a world picture?
What is the world picture? Obviously a picture of the world. But what does “World” mean here? What does “picture” mean? “World” serves here as a name for what is, in its entirety. The name is not limited to the cosmos, to nature. History also belongs to the world. Yet even nature and history, and both interpenetrating in their underlying and transcending of one another, do not exhaust the world. In this designation the ground of the world is meant also, no matter how its relation to the world is thought (Appendix 5).
With the word “picture” we think first of all of a copy of something. Accordingly, the world picture would be a painting, so to speak, of what is as a whole. But “world picture” means more than this. We mean by it the world itself, the world as such, what is, in its entirety, just as it is normative and binding for us. “To get into the picture” [literally, to put oneself into the picture] with respect to something means to set whatever is, itself, in place before oneself just in the way that it stands with it, and to have it fixedly before oneself as set up in this way. But a decisive determinant in the essence of the picture is still missing. “We get the picture” concerning something does not mean only that what is stands before us - in all that belongs to it and all that stands together in it - as a system. “To get the picture” throbs with being acquainted with something, with being equipped and prepared for it. Where the world becomes picture, what is, in its entirety, is juxtaposed as that for which man is prepared and which, correspondingly, he therefore intends to bring before himself and have before himself, and consequently intends in a decisive sense to set in place before himself (Appendix 6). Hence world picture, when understood essentially, does not mean a picture of the world but the world conceived and grasped as picture. What is, in its entirety, is now taken in such a way that it first is in being and only is in being to the extend that it is set up by man, who represents and sets forth. Wherever we have the world picture, an essential decision takes place regarding what is, in its entirety. The Being of whatever is, is sought and found in the representedness of the latter.
However, everywhere that whatever is, is not interpreted in this way, the world also cannot enter into a picture; there can be no world picture. The fact that whatever is comes into being in and through representedness transforms the age in which this occurs into a new age in contrast with the preceding one. The expressions "world picture of the modern age" and "modern world picture" both mean the same thing and both assume something that never could have been before, namely, a medieval and an ancient world picture. The world picture does not change from an earlier medieval one into a modern one, but rather the fact that the world becomes picture at all is what distinguishes the essence of the modern age [der Neuzeit]. For the Middle Ages, in contrast, that which is, is the ens creatum, that which is created by the personal Creator-God as the highest cause. Here, to be in being means to belong within a specific rank of the order of what has been created - a rank appointed from the beginning - and as thus caused, to correspond to the cause of creation (analogia entis) (Appendix 7). But never does the Being of that which is consist here in the fact that it is brought before man as the objective, in the fact that it is placed in the realm of man's knowing and of his having disposal, and that it is in being only in this way.
The modern interpretation of that which is, is even further from the interpretation characteristic of the Greeks. One of the oldest pronouncements of Greek thinking regarding the Being of that which is runs: To gar auto noein estin te kai einai.*15 This sentence of Parmenides means: The apprehending of whatever is belongs to Being because it is demanded and determined by Being. That which is, is that which arises and opens itself, which, as what presences, comes upon man as the one who presences, i.e., comes upon the one who himself opens himself to what presences in that he apprehends it. That which is does not come into being at all through the fact that man first looks upon it, in the sense of a representing that has the character of subjective perception. Rather, man is the one who is looked upon by that which is; he is the one who is - in company with itself - gathered toward presencing, by that which opens itself. To be beheld by what is, to be included and maintained within its openness and in that way to be borne along by it, to be driven about by its oppositions and marked by its discord - that is the essence of man in the great age of the Greeks. Therefore, in order to fulfill his essence, Greek man must gather (legein) and save (sozein), catch up and preserve, what opens itself in its openness, and he must remain exposed (aletheuein) to all its sundering confusions. Greek man is as the one who apprehends [der Vernehmer] that which is, and this is why in the age of the Greeks the world cannot become picture. Yet, on the other hand, that the beingness of whatever is, is defined for Plato as eidos [aspect, view] is the presupposition, destined far in advance and long ruling indirectly in concealment, for the world's having to become picture (Appendix 8).
[*12. The conventional translation of Weltbild would be “conception of the world” or “philosophy of life.” The more literal translation, “world picture,” is needed for the following of Heidegger’s discussion; but it is worth noting that “conception of the world” bears a close relation to Heidegger’s theme of man’s representing of the world as picture.
*15. The accepted English translation of this fragment is, “For thought and being are the same thing” (Nahm).]
In distinction from Greek apprehending, modern representing, whose meaning the word repraesentatio first brings to its earliest expression, intends something quite different. Here to represent [vorstel-len] means to bring what is present at hand [das Vorhandene] before oneself as something standing over against, to relate it to oneself, to the one representing it, and to force it back into this relationship to oneself as the normative realm. Wherever this happens, man "gets into the picture" in precedence over whatever is. But in that man puts himself into the picture in this way, he puts himself into the scene, i.e., into the open sphere of that which is generally and publicly represented. Therewith man sets himself up as the setting in which whatever is must henceforth set itself forth, must present itself [sich ... prasentieren], i.e., be picture. Man becomes the representative [der Reprasentant] of that which is, in the sense of that which has the character of object.
But the newness in this event by no means consists in the fact that now the position of man in the midst of what is, is an entirely different one in contrast to that of medieval and ancient man. What is decisive is that man himself expressly takes up this position as one constituted by himself, that he intentionally maintains it as that taken up by himself, and that he makes it secure as the solid footing for a possible development of humanity. Now for the first time is there any such thing as a 'position' of man. Man makes depend upon himself the way in which he must take his stand in relation to whatever is as the objective. There begins that way of being human which mans the realm of human capability as a domain given over to measuring and executing, for the purpose of gaining mastery over that which is as a whole. The age that is determined from out of this event is, when viewed in retrospect, not only a new one in contrast with the one that is past, but it settles itself firmly in place expressly as the new. To be new is peculiar to the world that has become picture.
When, accordingly, the picture character of the world is made clear as the representedness of that which is, then in order fully to grasp the modern essence of representedness we must track out and expose the original naming power of the worn-out word and concept "to represent" [vorstellen]: to set out before oneself and to set forth in relation to oneself. Through this, whatever is comes to a stand as object and in that way alone receives the seal of Being. That the world becomes picture is one and the same event with the event of man's becoming subiectum in the midst of that which is.
Only because and insofar as man actually and essentially has become subject is it necessary for him, as a consequence, to confront the explicit question: Is it as an "I" confined to its own preferences and freed into its own arbitrary choosing or as the "we" of society; is it as an individual or as a community; is it as a personality within the community or as a mere group member in the corporate body; is it as a state and nation and as a people or as the common humanity of modern man, that man will and ought to be the subject that in his modern essence he already is! Only where man is essentially already subject does there exist the possibility of his slipping into the aberration of subjectivism in the sense of individualism. But also, only where man remains subject does the positive struggle against individualism and for the community as the sphere of those goals that govern all achievement and usefulness have any meaning.
The interweaving of these two events, which for the modern age is decisive - that the world is transformed into picture and man into subiectum - throws light at the same time on the grounding event of modern history, an event that at first glance seems almost absurd. Namely, the more extensively and the more effectually the world stands at man’s disposal as conquered, and, the more objectively the object appears, all the more subjectively, i.e., the more importunately, does the subiectum rise up, and all the more impetuously, too, do observation of and teaching about the world change into a doctrine of man, into anthropology. It is no wonder that humanism first arises where the world becomes picture. It would have been just as impossible for a humanism to have gained currency in the great age of the Greeks as it would have been impossible to have had anything like a world picture in that age. Humanism, therefore, in the more strict historiographical sense, is nothing, but a moral-aesthetic anthropology. The name “anthropology” as used here does not mean just some investigation of man by a natural science. Nor does it mean the doctrine established within Christian theology of man created, fallen, and redeemed. It designates that philosophical interpretation of man which explains and evaluates whatever is, in its entirety, from the standpoint of man and in relation to man (Appendix 10).
The increasingly exclusive rooting of the interpretation of the world in anthropology, which has set in since the end of the eighteenth century, finds its expression in the fact that the fundamental stance of man in relation to what is, in its entirety, is defined as a world view (Weltanschauung). Since that time this word has been admitted into common usage. As soon as the world becomes picture, the position of man is conceived as a world view. To be sure, the phrase “world view” is open to misunderstanding, as though it were merely a matter here of a passive contemplation of the world. For this reason, already in the nineteenth century it was emphasized with justification that “world view” also meant and even meant primarily “view of life.” The fact that, despite this, the phrase “world view” asserts itself as the name for the position of man in the midst of all that is, is proof of how decisively the world became picture as soon as man brought his life as subiectum into precedence over other centers of relationship. This means: whatever is, is considered to be in being only to the degree and to the extent that it is taken into and referred back to this life, i.e., is lived out, and becomes life-experience. Just as unsuited to the Greek spirit as every humanism had to be, just so impossible was a medieval world view, and just as absurd is a Catholic world view. Just as necessarily and legitimately as everything must change into life-experience for modern man the more unlimitedly he takes charge of the shaping of his essence, just so certainly could the Greeks at the Olympian festivals never have had life-experiences.
The fundamental event of the modern age is the conquest of the world as picture. The word "picture" [Bild] now means the structured image [Gebild] that is the creature of man's producing which represents and sets before. In such producing, man contends for the position in which he can be that particular being who gives the measure and draws up the guidelines for everything that is. Because this position secures, organizes, and articulates itself as a world view, the modern relationship to that which is, is one that becomes, in its decisive unfolding, a confrontation of world views; and indeed not of random world views, but only of those that have already taken up the fundamental position of man that is most extreme, and have done so with the utmost resoluteness. For the sake of this struggle of world views and in keeping with its meaning, man brings into play his unlimited power for the calculating, planning, and molding of all things. Science as research is an absolutely necessary form of this establishing of self in the world; it is one of the pathways upon which the modern age rages toward fulfillment of its essence, with a velocity unknown to the participants. With this struggle of world views the modern age first enters into the part of its history that is the most decisive and probably the most capable of enduring (Appendix 11).
A sign of this event is that everywhere and in the most varied forms and disguises the gigantic is making its appearance. In so doing, it evidences itself simultaneously in the tendency toward the increasingly small. We have only to think of numbers in atomic physics. The gigantic presses forward in a form that actually seems to make it disappear - in the annihilation of great distances by the airplane, in the setting before us of foreign and remote worlds in their everydayness, which is produced at random through radio by a flick of the hand Yet we think too superficially if we suppose that the gigantic is only the endlessly extended emptiness of the purely quantitative. We think too little if we find that the gigantic, in the form of continual not-ever-having-been-here-yet, originates only in a blind mania for exaggerating and excelling. We do not think at all if we believe we have explained this phenomenon of the gigantic with the catchword “Americanism" (Appendix 12).
The gigantic is rather that through which the quantitative becomes a special quality and thus a remarkable kind of greatness. Each historical age is not only great in a distinctive way in contrast to others; it also has, in each instance, its own concept of greatness. But as soon as the gigantic in planning and calculating and adjusting and making secure shifts over out of the quantitative and becomes a special quality, then what is gigantic, and what can seemingly always be calculated completely, becomes, precisely through this, incalculable. This becoming incalculable remains the invisible shadow that is cast around all things everywhere when mas has been transformed in subiectum and the world into picture (Appendix 13).
By means of this shadow the modern world extends itself out into a space withdrawn from representation, and so lends to the incalculable the determinateness peculiar to it, as well as a historical uniqueness. This shadow, however, points to something else, which it is denied to us of today to know (Appendix 14). But man will never be able to experience and ponder this that is denied so long as he dawdles about in the mere negating of the age. The flight into tradition, out of a combination of humility and presumption, can bring about nothing in itself other than self-deception and blindness in relation to the historical moment.
Man will know, i.e., carefully safeguard into its truth, that which is incalculable, only in creative questioning and shaping out of the power of genuine reflection. Reflection transports the man of the future into that “between” in which he belongs to Being and yet remains a stranger amid that which is (Appendix 15). Hölderlin knew of this. His poem, which bears the superscription “To the German,” closes:
How narrowly bounded is our lifetime,
We see and count the number of our years.
But have the years of nations
Been seen by mortal eye?
If your soul throbs in longing
Over its own time, mourning, then
You linger on the cold shore
Among your own and never know them.

I've started the German course on duolingo and unfortunely they don't explain this. I thought articles work pretty much the same way as in English (ein/eine - a/an, dedie/das- the) but now I'm getting sentences that don't use them and it's kinda confusing! Take for example the sentence "Mein Vater ist Lehrer" - why is it not "Mein Vater ist ein Lehrer"? And in which other cases do you not use articles?

I just started reading my first serious book in my TL, one of my favorite books in English, The Martian, by Andy Weir. With all the technical vocabulary, I'm finding myself having to look up about a word a sentence. Is this silly? I'm enjoying the reading, but is it somehow less beneficial to my study?

I am living in Europe for my studies. I am (F) in a relationship with a native guy from this European country for the last four months. It's my first ever relationship. One month into the relationship, he said something very horrible to me. I am dealing with mental health problems, and he was aware of that when he made the comment. He said that I am being forgetful around him and that it is not pleasant for him to repeat what he said. In response, I apologized and explained that I give him my full attention and if I forget something he told me, it is probably due to the various things I am handling currently, like my studies, my mental health and career. Before he said I was forgetful, he said that I might have a terrible brain disease like dementia because I am being forgetful. I thought he was joking, but he confirmed he actually believed I had a brain disease and I should do something about it. I stopped talking to him after that, but he apologized profusely and I accepted his apology.
About a month later, i was complaining about how the healthcare system in this European country doesn't work properly because I had to wait two months for a CT scan of my ankle. I compared the healthcare system to that of my home country, where access to healthcare is much faster with no long waiting periods. He responded by saying I don't have the right to complain about the system in this country, only people born and brought up here have that right. I knew it was a racist comment, and he apologized again.
On another occasion, he said I am not smart enough for him. Another time, when we were talking (we communicate in English), he rudely told me to make proper sentences and speak proper English, saying I was talking like a monkey because I wasn't making proper phrases. At that point, I was very offended and told him I would not tolerate disrespect. He apologized again, saying he is a stupid man with stupid words and that I should accept his sincere apologies.
I loved him, but now I no longer feel those feelings because of the horrible things he has said to me. He mentioned that he has been horrible to his mother but still considers her an important person to him, trying to justify his bad behavior. He also told me he is autistic and that's why he behaves like this. He said hatred comes naturally to him and he has a hard time understanding love. He is also right-wing in his ideology, while I align more towards the left. He claims to be very religious and believes in God's teachings but behaves the opposite. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for his bad behavior because he is 19 years old and I am older than him, thinking he has a learning curve due to his age, but I cannot tolerate disrespect and racism.
He has repeatedly said horrible things to me, and now I feel I have reached my limit and cannot take it anymore because it is affecting my mental health. I told him that I prefer we don't talk for some time and that I need a break. I noticed that right after, he unfriended me on Instagram and hasn't replied to my last message.
I am heartbroken that he thinks it's a breakup since he removed me from his Instagram. I haven't reached out to him, and neither has he. I would like to know what you think of this, as this is my first relationship and I stood up against disrespect. I don't think I did anything wrong. His apologies never seem sincere because he tends to repeat the same bad behavior. I am glad that we never had sex. I am asexual, and we have only engaged in kisses and cuddles so far, so I thought it is easy for me to get over this relationship. But I am still heartbroken that it didn't work out.
TL;DR : I am breaking up with my bf because he is not treating me with respect. I am heartbroken though.

i havent been diagnosed and will probably never get diagnosed anytime soon due to my moms restrictive cultural beliefs, however i highly suspect i have autism (i have read the dsm5 criteria and my behaviour aligns with all of the criteria and have begun to research a lot). i have very “severe” speech issues and although i know that autism might affect speech, i dont know if what i experience is anything relating to autism or something autistic people can relate to. sometimes i have a malapropism or i will mix around words in a sentence. for example, if i want to say “her house is big and it makes me nervous”, i might say “her big is house and it makes her nervous” instead. sometimes i will mix up words that dont even sound similar? another example is that when i was writing the next sentence, i wrote “i also tend to mix up speeches” instead of “i also tend to mix up pronouns”. i also tend to mix up pronouns when there are multiple pronouns in a sentence, i also do this with names. hypothetical situation as an example: if im talking to a boy named ryan about a girl named alice and i call her ugly, i say “alice, i think ryan is ugly”. i also sometimes struggle to pronounce “a” and i say “e”, which is odd cause i have an east london english accent - a hackney accent to be exact. yeah so do any other autistic people have these same issues?

Context: I started DS in August 2022 with no prior Spanish study other than a few months with 10 minutes of daily practice on Duo Lingo. I'm at 831 hours and 362,000 words (11 books) read. I've also done about 50 hours of iTalki.
One of my best friends and his family are from Spain. I didn't tell him I was learning Spanish until I was at about 750 hours deep of CI/1.5+ years of learning, when I surprised him. I posted about that here.
I went to see this friend and his wife and kids this weekend. At one point he and his wife switched to Spanish for a moment in a conversation about the kids. He looked at me started to apologize for the language swap, and then he smiled at me and remembered I probably understood exactly what was going on. (Spoiler: I did.) Then, he intentionally switched to Spanish and started talking to me.
His wife was very surprised and delighted that I could easily understand everything discussed and chime in accordingly. Four of us spoke in Spanish for almost 3 hours - I did more listening/less talking than I would for a conversation in English, but I could clock every word of native-speed conversation, catch jokes or references, and contribute little anecdotes or ask questions. By the end I was exhausted. I still get frustrated with the fact that my sentences are not wildly complex, and I also know that at times my grammar was and is wonky, particularly regarding subjunctive usage (or in my case, more so the lack thereof).
However, when I think about the fact that when I started in August 2022 I had zero Spanish knowledge other than a few hours logged on Duo, and I think about how now I can follow along in a conversation that covered movie recommendations, literature, vacation plans, health issues, their pending move across the country, new jobs, his daughter's college applications, and more, I feel so glad to have started this long journey of language learning. Can't wait to see where I'll be in another year or two - onward!

My foxbrained father called me into the room while I was changing bedsheets to comment on the Trump trial, saying with absolute certainty that the stain will be acquitted 100%. And so I responded with "You sure about that?" and we talked on it for awhile.
He was all fixated on Cohen as a witness and his credibility and the fact he's a liar etc etc, so I brought up that this was a documents case, he wasn't the only witness and was mostly just there to corroborate earlier testimony.
"Well--"
"Why did he hire a criminal as a fixer in the first place, anyway?"
"Uh...I don't know? He makes a lotta stupid decisions."
I also asked why the pustule didn't testify, my dad admitted it was probably because he couldn't keep his mouth shut and he was advised not to. He was also insistent that this trial was skyrocketing Dump's campaign because he's somehow sympathetic because Democrats are meanies or something. He also tried the whole "but the judge's daughter is a democrat involved in....some bad things....." angle and how that damages the judge's credibility as a judge. I asked what the judge's daughter, whom I'm guessing is an adult and her own person, had anything to do with the case, and he didn't have an answer.
As I tried to point out more details that put the chance of acquittal into doubt, he then flat out started interrupting me mid-sentence with something completely off topic. Like as I was explaining how I believed the defense wasn't doing great he cut in mid sentence to comment on the weather. (It is rather stormy today...no pun intended) And when I acknowledged and tried to continue he interrupted with a comment about the dogs, then some other unrelated thing, and I just let it drop bc frankly I wanted to get back to my task anyway. and I fucking hate debating since I have trouble keeping emotionally detached and end up overwhelmed.
I just find it funny how I tried to calmly poke holes in his confident declaration on something so unlikely to happen in the eyes of anyone outside the cult, and I guess being unable to counter my points he just tried to abruptly change the subject completely. Which feels presumptuous to say but I don't otherwise know why he'd force a subject change while I was mid-sentence explaining something. I guess I should be glad that of all the relatives of mine that are eyebrows-deep in the orange koolaid, he's not quite at that level, just by virtue of him admitting Dump is flawed at all. Which is a sad statement but I guess that's the reality we live in currently.

It's also called "the little book". When it's invoked by authors. It is 100% primary reading material if you want to be a writer. It's thinner then any of the books you read in high school. It's 75 rules for good writing and grammatical English (British) rules. If you memorize all of the rules, your writing will improve.
I just keep seeing people posting the same question. "How do I know if my writing is good?" "How do I improve my writing?" "How do I self-edit?" "Why do you need an editor?" "Why are literary agents able to reject based on just 5 pages?" "I feel horrible about my writing and don't know how to improve."
The answer to all of them is get The Elements of Style.
Coincidentally, the lesson:
"It's" ALWAYS means "it is." You have to be able to read the sentence with "it is" and make sure you have verb/noun agreement in order to use this. Reread the first paragraph. I use "It's" correctly three times.
"Its" is POSSESSIVE. It's really the grammar split between "Use an apostrophe for contractions" and "Use an apostrophe to show possession." Contractions won, so "its" as a possessive does not use an apostrophe to show possession. Because English is weird, that's why. Apparently we were fighting over it a few hundred years ago.
It's one of the grammatical rules from Elements of Style that I've memorized. I can either type it out correctly the first time, or catch it in editing. Because a literary agents knows an amateur the minute you fuck up your formatting or grammar. And if you'd like for me to do a post on literary agents, I can.
"BUT I'M A-" Nope, shut up. Do you know who Strunk and White are? Strunk was the teacher. White as in E. B. White. The author of Charlotte's Web. Strunk taught White how to write as an experiment, and proved it by training E. B. fucking White to become a champion, award-winning children's author.
I'm not saying there's a formula for good writing, but Elements of Style comes damn close. And you are not fucking E. B. White, are you? Have YOU written an award-winning children's book known the world over by it's name alone?
Then shut the fuck up and memorize 75 rules for grammar. The book costs less than a dollar.
There, I just answered half the questions on this forum.

Hi all,
I currently live and work in the US. I speak and write in English throughout the day.
Even though I can say whatever I want to say, I know my english is far from perfect. My vocabulary is not nuanced enough, I make small grammar mistakes, I don’t always build my sentences the way a native speaker would, etc.
I feel like I won’t improve by being passive and need private lessons to speak the same english a native speaker would. My job involves a lot of communication and sounding close to native would really help…
Would you have any recommendation on how to best work with a private tutor? Should we just discuss and stop anytime I’m not speaking correctly, or do advanced grammar? Any tips would be much appreciated! Thanks

From my experience, the site has been going down a lot more frequently than in the last months and so, making it go from a almost never occurring inconvenience to a weekly event. Not only that, but, the f!lter is a lot more strict now, not even talking about the 18+ things, but just the mention of a period/blood was enough for me to get the ban constantly. Mere mentions of accidents, violence or bruises were enough to fire it up. And another thing is that I'm getting a LOT of unfinished messages. Like, almost every single one of them are unfinished, for some reason. No, it's not the f!lter, it's just the fact that the message doesn't end, and it ends in the middle of a sentence for no apparent reason. And not only that, but, all the bots seem to be way too flirty now. Bots that I have chatted before being now overly pushy and flirty when I'm trying to make an angst RP or something more serious.
And all of those things are recent, and I have not experienced them beforehand, besides the f!lter issue.
Is it like this to everyone, or I'm just very, very unlucky?
(Sorry if there's any grammatical errors of some sort, my first language is not English.)

Hej alle sammen!
My little sister (15) has been trying to learn a bit of Danish for quite a while, really only on Duolingo, but for a year now.
I have my own experiences with Duolingo trying to learn French, and I know it's not really the ideal way of properly learning a language.
Since her birthday is coming up, I wondered whether I could get her some simple book or story of some sort to read in Danish so she can make a bit more progress and maybe get used to more sentences and texts, maybe sth bilingual (we're German, so Danish-German or Danish-English would be nice)
Is there any idea you have about what I could get her? If you don't think this is the right gift for her based on her experience level, maybe you have another language-focused idea? Would love some suggestions in any case.

From my experience, the site has been going down a lot more frequently than in the last months and so, making it go from a almost never occurring inconvenience to a weekly event. Not only that, but, the f!lter is a lot more strict now, not even talking about the 18+ things, but just the mention of a period/blood in an rp was enough for me to get the responses banned constantly. Mere mentions of accidents, violence or bruises were enough to fire it up. And another thing is that I'm getting a LOT of unfinished messages. Like, almost every single one of them are unfinished, for some reason. No, it's not the f!lter, it's just the fact that the message doesn't end, and it ends in the middle of a sentence for no apparent reason. And not only that, but, all the bots seem to be way too flirty now. Bots that I have chatted before being now overly pushy and flirty when I'm trying to make an angst RP or something more serious.
And all of those things are recent, and I have not experienced them beforehand, besides the f!lter issue.
Is it like this to everyone, or I'm just very, very unlucky?
(Sorry if there's any grammatical errors of some sort, my first language is not English.)

It took me a minute to decipher that, all good though

APPENDIX (continuation)

1. How does it happen at all that that which is displays itself in a pronounced manner as subiectum, and that as a consequence the subjective achieves dominance? For up to Descartes, and also still within his metaphysics, that which is, insofar as it is a particular being, a particular sub-iectum (hypo-keimenon), is something lying before from out of itself, which, as such, simultaneously lies at the foundation of its own fixed qualities and changing circumstances. The superiority of a sub-iectum (as a ground lying at the foundation) that is preeminent because it is in an essential respect unconditional arises out of the claim of man to a fundaemntum absolutum inconcussum veritatis (self-supported, unshakable foundation of truth, in the sense of certainty). Why and how does this claim acquire its decisive authority? The claim originates in that emancipation of man in which he frees himself from obligation to Christian revelational truth and Church doctrine to a legislating for himself that takes its stand upon itself. Through this liberation, the essence of freedom, i.e., being bound by something obligatory, is posited anew. But because, in keeping with this freedom, self-liberating man himself posits what is obligatory, the latter can henceforth be variously defined. The obligatory can be human reason and its law; or whatever is, arranged and objectively ordered from out of such reason; or that chaos, not yet ordered and still to be mastered through objectification, which demands mastery in a particular age.

But this liberation, although without knowing it, is always still freeing itself from being bound by the revelational truth in which the salvation of man’s soul is made certain and is guaranteed for him. Hence liberation from the revelational certainty of salvation had to be intrinsically a freeing to a certainty [Gewissheit] in which man makes secure for himself the true as the known of his own knowing [Wissens]. That was possible only through self-liberating man’s guaranteeing for himself the certainty of the knowable. Such a thing could happen, however, only insofar as man decided, by himself and for himself, what, for him, should be “knowable” and what knowing and the making secure of the known, i.e., certainty, should mean. Descartes’s metaphysical task became the following: to create the metaphysical foundation for the freeing of man to freedom as the self-determination that is certain of itself. That foundation, however, had not only to be itself one that was certain, but since every standard of measure from any other sphere was forbidden, it had at the same time to be of such a kind that through it the essence of the freedom claimed would be posited as self-certainty. And yet everything that is certain from out of itself must at the same time concomitantly make secure as certain that being for which everything knowable must be made secure. The fundamentum, the ground of that freedom, that which lies at its foundation, the subiectum, must be something certain that satisfies the essential demands just mentioned. A subiectum distinguished in all these respects becomes necessary. What is this something certain that fashions and gives the foundation? The ego cogito (ergo) sum. The something certain is a principle that declares that, simultaneously (conjointly and lasting an equal length of time) with man’s thinking, man himself is indubitably co-present, which means now is given to himself. Thinking is representing, setting-before, is a representing relation to what is represented (idea as perceptio).
To represent means here: of oneself to set something before oneself and to make secure what has been set in place, as something set in place. This making secure must be a calculating, for calculability alone guarantees being certain in advance, and firmly and constantly, of that which is to be represented. Representing is no longer the apprehending of that which presences, within whose unconcealment apprehending itself belongs, belongs indeed as a unique kind of presencing toward that which presences that is unconcealed. Representing is no longer a self-unconcealing for . . ., but is a laying hold and grasping of. . . . What presences does not hold sway, but rather assault rules. Representing is now, in keeping with the new freedom, a going forth - from out of itself - into the sphere, first to be made secure, of what is made secure. That which is, is no longer that which presences; it is rather that which, in representing, is first set over against, that which stands fixedly over against, which has the character of object [das Gegen-standige]. Representing is making-stand-over-against, an objectifying that goes forward and masters. In this way representing drives everything together into the unity of that which is thus given the character of object. Representing is coagitatio.
Every relation to something - willing, taking a point of view, being sensible of [something] - is already representing; it is cogitans, which we translate as “thinking.” Therefore Descartes can cover all the modes of voluntas and of affectus, all actiones and passiones, with a designation that is at first surprising: cogitatio. In the ego cogito sum, the cogitare is understood in this essential and new sense. The subiectum, the fundamental certainty, is the being-represented-together-with - made secure at any time - of representing man together with the entity represented, whether something human or non-human, i.e., together with the objective. The fundamental certainty is the me cogitare = me esse that is at any time indubitably representable and represented. This is the fundamental equation of all reckoning belonging to the representing that is itself making itself secure. In this fundamental certainty man is sure that, as the representer of all representing, and therewith as the realm of all representedness, and hence of all certainty and truth, he is made safe and secure, i.e., is. Only because in the fundamental certainty (in the fundamentum absolutum inconcussum of the me cogitare = me esse), man is, in this way, necessarily represented-together-with; only because man who frees himself to himself belongs necessarily within the subiectum of this freedom - only for this reason can and must this man himself be transformed into an exceptional being, into a subject which, with regard to that which truly (i.e., certainly) is, which is primary, has preeminence among all subiecta. That in the fundamental equation of certainty, and then again in the actual subiectum, the ego is named does not mean that man is now being defined in terms of the I and egoistically. It means simply this: To be subject now becomes the distinction of man as the thinking-representing being [Wesen]. The I of man is placed in the service of this subiectum. The certainty lying at the foundation of this subiectum is indeed subjective, i.e., is holding sway in the essence of the subiectum; but it is not egoistic. Certainty is binding for every I as such, i.e., for every I as subiectum. In the same way, everything that intends to be established, through representing objectification, as secured and hence as in being, is binding for every man. But nothing can elude this objectification that remains at the same time the decision concerning what must be allowed to count as an object. To the essence of the subjectivity of the subiectum and to the essence of man as subject belongs the unconditional delimiting forth [Entschrankung] of the realm of possible objectification and the right to decide regarding objectification.*37
Now it has also been clarified in what sense man as subject intends to be and must be the measure and center of that which is, which means of objects, of whatever stands-over-against. Man is now no longer metron in the sense of the restricting of his apprehending to the encircling sphere, particularized at any given time, of the unconcealment belonging to whatever presences toward which each man presence at any given time. As subiectum, man is the co-agitatio of the ego. Man founds and confirms himself as the authoritative measure for all standards of measure with which whatever can be accounted as certain - i.e., as true, i.e., as in being - is measured off and measured out (reckoned up). Freedom is new as the freedom of the subiectum. In the Meditationes de prima philosophia the freeing of man to the new freedom is brought onto its foundation, the subiectum. The freeing of modern man does not first begin with the ego cogito ergo sum, nor is the metaphysics of Descartes merely a metaphysics subsequently supplied and therefore externally built onto this freedom, in the sense of an ideology. In the co-agitatio, representing gathers all that is objective into the “all together” of representedness. The ego of the cogitare now finds in the self-securing “together” of representedness, in con-scientia, its essence. Conscientia is the representing setting together of whatever has the character of object, along with representing man, within the sphere of representedness setting together of whatever has the character of object, along with representing man, within the sphere of representedness safeguarded by man. Everything that presences receives from out of this representedness the meaning and manner of its presence [Anwesenheit] - namely, the meaning and manner of presence [Praesenz] - in repraesentatio. The con-scientia of the ego as the subiectum of the coagitatio determines, as the subjectivity of the subiectum that is distinctive in this way, the Being of whatever is.
The Meditationes de prima philosophia provide the pattern for an ontology of the subiectum with respect to subjectivity defined as conscientia. Man has become subiectum. Therefore he can determine and realize the essence of subjectivity, always in keeping with the way in which he himself conceives and wills himself. Man as a rational being of the age of the Enlightenment is no less subject than is man who grasps himself as a nation, wills himself as a people, fosters himself as a race, and, finally, empowers himself as lord of the earth. Still, in all these fundamental positions of subjectivity, a different kind of I-ness and egoism is also possible; for man constantly remains determined as I and thou, we and you. Subjective egoism, for which mostly without its knowing it the I is determined beforehand as subject, can be canceled out through the insertion of the I into the we. Through this, subjectivity only gains in power. In the planetary imperialism of technologically organized man, the subjectivism of man attains its acme, from which point it will descend to the level of organized uniformity and there firmly establish itself. This uniformity becomes the surest instrument of total, i.e., technological, rule over the earth.*38 The modern freedom of subjectivity vanishes totally in the objectivity commensurate with it. Man cannot, of himself, abandon this destining of his modern essence or abolish it by fiat. But man can, as he thinks ahead, ponder this: Being subject as humanity has not always been the sole possibility belonging to the essence of historical man, which is always beginning in a primal way, nor will it always be. A fleeting cloud shadow over a concealed land, such is the darkening which that truth as the certainty of subjectivity - once prepared by Christendom’s certainty of salvation - lays over a disclosing event [Ereignis] that it remains denied to subjectivity itself to experience.
[*23. Cornford translates: “Man is the measure of all things-alike of the being of things that are and of the not-being of things that are not.” Having given his own translation of the quotation at the beginning of this paragraph, Heidegger now proceeds to give, at the beginning of the next, a rendering of it that presents his thinking out of the thought of the Greek passage in his own way.
*24. Cornford translates: “He puts it in this sort of way, doesn’t he? - that any given thing ‘is to me such as it appears to me, and is to you such as it appears to you,’ you and I being men.”
*25. This is a literal translation of the German, as the latter is of the Greek. However, it is impossible in English to bring out one emphasis that Heidegger himself gives. Following the Greek word order, he places als (as; Greek hos) at the beginning of the main clause in the sentence, in an atypical German construction. He is thus able to stress by a means not available in English the importance here of the appearance to the particular observer.
*37. The noun Entschrankung is peculiar to Heidegger. Related nouns mean bounds or that which is enclosed. On the prefix ent-, as meaning forth or out, see QT 11 n. 10. Entschrankung expresses Heidegger’s view that to set bounds is to free what is enclosed to be what it is (cf. QT 8). Heidegger is using the word in this context to point up the contrast between the position of modern man and that of Greek man, who, far from setting limits, “accepts restriction to the horizon of unconcealment that is limited [beschrankten] after the manner of the I,” and who, far from deciding about what shall have being, “acknowledges the concealedness of what is the insusceptibility of the latter’s presencing or absenting to any decision.” See p. 146.
*38. The reader will recognize in this passage a close foreshadowing of Heidegger’s later characterization of the modern age as that wherein - under the rule of Enframing as the essence of technology - everything that is, is, through man, being transformed into and set in order as nothing but standing-reserve. Cf. QT 14 ff.]

1. Anthropology is that interpretation of man that already knows fundamentally what man is and hence can never ask who he may be. For with this question it would have to confess itself shaken and overcome. But how can this be expected of anthropology when the latter has expressly to achieve nothing less that the securing consequent upon the self-secureness of the subiectum?
   
2. For now the melting down of the self-consummating essence of the modern age into the self-evident is being accomplished. Only when this is assured through world views will the possibility arise of there being a fertile soil for Being to be in question in an original way - a questionableness of Being that will open ample space for the decision as to whether Being will once again become capable of a god, as to whether Being will once again become capable of a god, as to whether the essence of the truth of Being will lay claim more primally to the essence of man. Only there where the consummation of the modern age attains the heedlessness that is its peculiar greatness is future history being prepared.
   
3. “Americanism” is something European. It is an as-yet-uncomprehended species of the gigantic, the gigantic that is itself still inchoate and does not as yet originate at all out of the complete and gathered metaphysical essence of the modern age. The American interpretation [Interpretation] of Americanism by means of pragmatism still remains outside the metaphysical realm.
   

13. Everyday opinion sees in the shadow only the lack of light, if not light’s complete denial. In truth, however, the shadow is a manifest, though impenetrable, testimony to the concealed emitting of light. In keeping with this concept of shadow, we experience the incalculable as that which, withdrawn from representation, is nevertheless manifest in whatever is, pointing to Being, which remains concealed.

1. But suppose that denial itself had to become the highest and most austere revealing of Being? What then? Understood from out of metaphysics (i.e., out of the question of Being, in the form What is it to be?), the concealed essence of Being, denial, unveils itself first of all as absolutely not-having-being, as Nothing. But Nothing as that Nothing which pertains to the having-of-being is the keenest opponent of mere negating. Nothing is never nothing; it is just as little as something, in the sense of an object [Gegenstand]; it is Being itself, whose truth will be given over to man when has overcome himself as subject, and that means when he no longer represents that which is as object [Objekt].
   
2. This open between is the openness-for-Being [Da-sein], the word understood in the sense of the ecstatic realm of the revealing and concealing of Being.
   

I’m not sure I actually believe the above statement is true, but I figured it would generate some discussion. Here is my situation:
I’m an American and I live in a large city in a Spanish speaking country. There are a number of factors that drove me to move here, a very significant one being my desire to reach full bilingual proficiency in the language. When I arrived a year ago I had a low B1 — the result of 8ish years studying to varying degrees of intensity, mostly school, Duolingo, podcasts, books, series. In the months before my arrival here I worked in a restaurant in the US where Spanish was almost exclusively spoken among staff.
Fast forward a year and I would describe myself as a B2, although it’s complicated. I take C1 classes, have a solid grasp of complex grammar, can read Borges, Cortázar and Lorca with ease, have a strong vocabulary, and can understand nearly 100% of what I hear people say. My comprehension, reading, and writing is thus pretty close to C2.
However, when I open my mouth to speak, what comes out is jumbled B1 baby talk at best. I struggle to finish simple sentences, all my vocabulary leaves me. My accent and spoken grammar is quite bad— most people struggle to understand me. When I talk, I can’t shake the feeling that the unintelligibility of my speech (or maybe my mannerisms, formality, idk) makes people uncomfortable and is the cause of so many awkward moments. This is obviously devastating to my already vulnerable self esteem as a foreigner trying to fit in, establish a life, etc. The result has been that I tend to shut up when I’m in Spanish speaking spaces. “Who’s your quiet friend?” is a common question my friends get asked when they introduce me to people. Most of my close friends are totally bilingual and therefore we speak in English. I’ve given up trying to switch to Spanish with them — they either laugh at my accent or correct my grammar until I get frustrated and give up. I’ve been told multiple times that I sound “cringe” in Spanish.
This is made all the more frustrating by the fact that everyone I encounter seems to be bilingual or a polyglot. Multilingualism is so common and comes so naturally to so many people that to them it’s not even worth talking about. I have a friend who spent just a few months taking an intensive Catalan course (she already spoke English, Spanish, and Italian) and can now hold her own with natives. What the hell am I doing wrong? It’s starting to feel like I have an intellectual deficiency.
It’s true that I’m not completely immersed. I work primarily in English, although I live with Spanish speakers. I volunteer and try to be as social and as involved in the community as I can given my temperament, but I’m realizing I can’t be a person I’m not for the purpose of achieving an intellectual goal. Yes, if full, native fluency is what I really wanted then I should be going out, spending all my time in groups, talking to strangers, pursuing relationships all in my second language. But I don’t live like that anywhere in any language. I never have. I am an introvert, and talking to people (most people, that is) for extended periods of time requires immense amounts of my mental energy. In a language that’s not my own, it can very quickly become too much.
I will be here for about another year. Is there hope? Given all that^what should I be doing differently? I read in Spanish every day, I have a private tutor, I take group classes once a week (the most I can afford). What would you do? Anyone have similar problems? Did you overcome them? If so, how?

For some of the questions, I drew symbols like a triangle and then redrew the symbol on extra paper. Is this fine? Will this also affect structure marks because for Question 5 in English Language I tried to insert a single line sentence but I forgot so I added it in extra space with I think brackets to tell the examiner it meant to be space in between - will this be okay, and would I be marked down for spag?
Is it fine if I write outside the given lines but not outside the box? It's still on the page and not where it says "Do not write outside the box"
If I wrote on extra paper in brackets that I'm continuing the question, would they be cruel enough to mark that as the question and mark me down?

I have compiled every bit of insight I've found for test-takers of the FTCE English 5-9 exam.
For context: after interviewing at my dream school, I was told at the end of the interview that I have the job, if I passed the English 5-9 exams (and pending my SOE from FLDOE, obviously). I was thrilled. The only problem: with the score reporting dates and the alignment of the first day of school, I needed to take this test within the next two weeks to receive my results and ultimately be hired before the next school year. I interviewed last Wednesday and scheduled the exams for Thursday (MC) and Tuesday (Essay).
I did so much research the first day, trying my best to find every bit of information about what to expect during these tests. Here is a compiled list of my advice/tips & tricks to pass the first try. Note: I know I passed the multiple choice, but am awaiting results for the written portion of the exam. I will know if I passed the written essay by June 24, and will update this post then.
TLDR: When researching, I could only find people asking for help, but little to no help was given. I am compiling everything here for those seeking out more information like I was.
Multiple Choice Recommendations:

• 240Tutoring is known to be a great resource, but it is expensive. For me personally, I did not have time to enroll in it, nor did I have the money to waste. I do not feel like deciding to pass on it affected my score or my confidence during the test.
• Instead, I consistently took practice tests over and over until I felt comfortable with the types of questions to expect on the test. I took practice tests from 240Tutoring (the entire 60 questions at the sacrifice of my email), FTCE.org, and Quizlet. I found study sets with the types of questions from the exam and utilized the free Practice Test tool.
• The multiple-choice questions are not intended to trick you. For teaching questions, if you focus on the answers that directly highlight differentiated instruction, data-driven instruction, and utilizing the district/state standards, you will get the answer correct. For ELA knowledge questions, you simply need to be familiar with the types of things you can expect to be teaching, from figurative language to notable authors. Don't spend too much time studying incredibly niche titles. Think bigger picture.
• Utilize the highlight tool to break the questions down. Figure out exactly what the question is asking and answer that part. Don't think too deeply about the details or the nuance. If information is not provided in the question, it shouldn't be in your answer.

Written Essay Recommendations:
NOTE: I spent a lot of time analyzing the examples on FTCE.org so you don't have to. None of this information was compiled based on MY exam and MY response, only based on the example provided by FTCE.

• The prompt will give you six bullet points of evaluation. In your response, there should be one paragraph per bullet point with 2-5 sentences each, addressing directly what is asked in the bullet point. They should be succinct, and every sentence should serve a purpose for the scoring criteria; completion, application of content, or support. Each paragraph should have at least 1-2 citations from either the student or the exhibits as evidence for evaluation.
• Do not comment on any aspect of the student's essay without evaluating the student's writing. For example, none of your responses should include your opinion about the assignment or evidence given to the student, only the student's interpretation of the evidence and their written response to the assignment.
• Comment evaluatively rather than descriptively, and do not repeat the student's point without evaluation to accompany it.
• Identify and evaluate the flaws in student reasoning, with recommendations for improvement utilizing domain-specific vocabulary. Highlight your understanding of essay writing conventions while addressing why and how those conventions are important for improving the students' writing.
• Consistently reference the students' writing and/or the assignment by using quotations or parentheticals throughout the response.

So in summary, just remember to EVALUATE WITH EVIDENCE. Provide clear and concise feedback, with relevant recommendations for improvement, supported by instructional and standards-based practices.
Hopefully, these recommendations can help you pass your FTCE English 5-9 on the first try! Good luck!

A couple of months ago in March, a 37-year-old man named Crosetti Brand was released on parole in the state of Illinois. He had been locked up on a charge of home invasion and sentenced to more than a decade in prison. But the state’s prisoner review board decided to let him out early with electronic monitoring, and what happened next was predictable. Just a day after he got out of prison, Chicago police say that Crosetti attacked a pregnant woman and her 11-year-old boy, killing the child and critically injuring his mother. According to court documents, the last time he was on parole, Crosetti had threatened the same woman by texts and showed up at her home, but none of Crosetti’s criminal history, including his alleged threats, were enough to keep him in prison. And now authorities say that a child is dead as a result.
Now, this is clearly a massive failure of the judicial system in Illinois, which, particularly post-BLM, has focused more on “rehabilitation” instead of punishment - it’s the kind of episode that you’d hope would spur lawmakers in Illinois to pass new laws to rein in their approach of “restorative justice,” but the Illinois government has opted for a very different response. Instead of doing something to prevent violent criminals from getting out of prison, state lawmakers have decided on a course of action that’s ripped straight from a Babylon Bee article.
A new bill that was just passed by both houses of the Illinois legislature—and which is expected to be signed by the governor—will modify state law so that the term “offender” becomes replaced by the term “justice-impacted individual.” The Department of Corrections and a bunch of other government agencies will be required to use that term from now on. So the plan is not to do anything about the criminals who are getting out of prison. It’s to use a nicer word to describe these criminals. Don’t call them “offenders,” call them “justice-impacted individuals.”
Now, I had to check several times to make sure this wasn’t satire because it is quite literally beyond parody - actually, if the Babylon Bee had come up with this idea, I wouldn’t find it funny because it would be too on the nose. But this is reality now in Illinois. This is their cutting-edge approach to criminal justice.

MALE REPORTER: “Lawmakers have passed a bill that, if signed into law by governor Pritzker, will change the term ‘offender’ in state law to ‘justice impacted individual.’”
FEMALE REPORTER 1: “WGN’s Jewell Hillary here to explain, Jewel.”
FEMALE REPORTER 2: “Hi, Mike and Brady, so this legislation has passed both the state, house, and senate, and to be very clear, the potential language change would only apply to about 1,800 offenders across the state. [voiceover] On Tuesday, Bill 4409 passed in the state senate 34-20.”
POLITICIAN: “Question is, your house bill 4409 pass, all those in favor, vote ‘I’, oppose, ‘nay’, the voting is open.” [ding]
FEMALE REPORTER 2: “The proposed legislation would remove the term ‘offender’ and replace it with ‘justice impacted individual’ for individuals in the state’s Adult Redeploy Illinois program, commonly referred to as ARI. According to the Illinois Criminal Justice information authority, ARI is an initiative that offenders from prisons to programs to help rehabilitate them to success. Republicans say the language change portrays a lack of empathy for victims and lack of concern for public safety.”
REPUBLICAN: “Change this, change that. The only thing that you don’t want to change is the behavior of criminals.”

Now, before the fact-checkers jump down my throat, I’ll emphasize one thing, which is that this rebrand doesn’t apply to everyone who commits crimes in the state of Illinois - instead, this new term applies to men and women in the state’s “Adult Redeploy Illinois” program, or ARI as you heard; according to the government of McLean County, Illinois, the ARI program provides for “comprehensive daily supervision” of dozens of “high-risk adult felons as an alternative to costly penitentiary commitment.”
So they’re not rebranding EVERY criminal as a “justice-impacted individual.” They’re only rebranding SOME of the “high-risk adult felons” who otherwise would be in prison. So if you’re living in Chicago, hopefully you can rest easy tonight with that distinction in mind.
Now, the point of the word game here is the same as always. First, it removes agency from the individual by making terminology as passive as possible - an offender is not an offender anymore because offending is something that a person actively does—it puts the onus on the individual, you have gone out and offended, you have committed an offense—and instead they’re saying, “well, they’re justice impacted.” They were impacted by justice, it’s not their fault. Justice came alone and impacted them. They’re the victims here, if anything. And second, on top of making everything and removing agency, it also helps identify the people in your club, because they’re the ones who know about these lingo changes and follow the rules. So it’s not much different from a child who sets up a pillow fort and won’t let you inside the fort unless you know the password, which changes randomly and on a whim, it’s like that kind of idea.
Now, if you go looking online for the term “justice-impacted individual,” you’ll find that it’s popular among Harvard podcasters, billionaire Left-wing activists, giant Silicon Valley corporations like Google; these are people and organizations that, conveniently enough, have distanced themselves as much as possible from communities where crime is high. So they don’t want anything to do with the “justice-impacted individuals,” but they want YOU to have to live near them and treat them with respect and even refer to them in a way that would not be alienating or otherizing for them.
Of course, nobody in the real world uses terms like “justice-impacted individuals,” which is precisely the point. If you go around saying the words “justice-impacted individual,” then you’re instantly communicating where you stand on the political spectrum. And perhaps more importantly, people who don’t use these new terms are instantly identifiable as outcasts, as racists and terrible people. Every so often, wealthy elites and academics come up with new ways to provide these kinds of signals, and then they inevitably filter down to activists and government bureaucrats, which is what’s happening right now in Illinois. Which is also why, by the way, this may be the first time you’re hearing of “justice impacted individual” - give it like a year, or six months, and you’ll be hearing it everywhere. That’s the way this always goes.
Now, there was an episode during the Canadian trucker convoy a couple of years ago that illustrates how this strategy works in practice: the truckers who gathered in the Canadian capital city of Ottawa were exactly the kind of blue-collar workers that liberals pretend to care about, but in this case, the blue-collar workers were protesting for freedom, so they had to be crushed. It was vitally important for liberals to smear these truckers as racist, and one of the ways the liberals did that was by criticizing the truckers for using the wrong lingo.
This is a clip from a Fox interview that Leftists mocked relentlessly during the convoy, and listen to it and see if you can spot what they considered the problem to be:

*“It was only one guy, so we are not racists - I have all types of friends: colored friends, Spanish, Chinese, you know? They are great people… there is no racism here.”

So this is a Romanian trucker who clearly speaks English as a second language, and he’s explaining on primetime television that he’s not racist because he has a bunch of “colored friends.”
Now, logically, there’s no difference whatsoever between saying “I have colored friends” and “I have friends who are people of color”—it’s just a slight grammatical difference that means absolutely nothing, it’s all semantics - if anything, the latter sentence is unnecessarily wordy—otherwise, they’re the same. If a person can be “of color” then it is accurate to say that the person is “colored.” A person of color is a colored person. But your intellectual superiors have decided for reasons that cannot be explained that “people of color” is the only phrase you’re allowed to use. If you say “colored people”—unless you’re the NAACP—you’re a bigot. So they vilified this trucker all over social media, both here and in Canada, and on top of that, too, not only did he use the wrong lingo, but he also tried to disprove accusations of racism by saying he has black friends, and we’re also told by our betters that that doesn’t prove anything. But of course, it absolutely does - like if you have friends of a particular race, it’s a pretty good indication that you’re not racist against that race.
But this is one of the main reasons that cutting-edge P.C. lingo exists - it’s why you’re supposed to say “people experiencing homelessness,” instead of “homeless drug addict.” It’s why you’re supposed to say “minor attracted person” instead of “pedophile.” And it’s why, if at all possible, you’re supposed to employ clever euphemisms to describe criminals who happen to be, really, any race but white.
The New York Post is particularly adept at this last trick to the point that it’s become a running joke online (and presumably, in the Post’s newsroom) - among the euphemisms that the New York Post has come up with to describe black suspects are: “cold-hearted teens,” “knife-wielding sicko,” “misogynistic maniac,” and my personal favorite, “Lunchtime rowdies.”
Now, just in case there was any doubt that the Post is doing this deliberately, here’s a passage from that article on the “lunchtime rowdies.” See if you can count all the euphemisms. Here it is, and this is totally real: “A band of foul-mouthed, toy gun-waving, pot-puffing high school hooligans are keeping residents of West 13th off 6th Avenue hostage in their own tony homes. … For at least a year while school is in session, the roughnecks roam from stoop to stoop every day at lunchtime, rolling blunts, getting high, acting out and taunting anyone who gets in their way.”
Now, with terms like “hooligans,” “roughnecks,” “lunchtime rowdies,” you’d be forgiven for thinking that this is an article from a small town newspaper somewhere out in the wild west in the year 1873 - my only hope is that in the next Post article they can work in the terms “ruffian” and “scoundrel.” But in any case, you read the whole article, and you won’t find any mention in the text about the ethnicity of these “lunchtime rowdies” and “pot-puffing hooligans.” But if a white person is causing problems, the Post will generally put the race in the headline - for example, one recent headline in the Post read, “Video shows black NYC partiers scatter for cover as white neighbor douses them with garden hose.”
Now, there was no euphemism for the white guy. He wasn’t a “hose-toting scoundrel” or anything like that. He was just a “white neighbor.” And for what it’s worth, not all of the people he hit with the water were black - the Post went out of its way to mention the race of the white guy even when it was misleading to do so. Of course.
This isn’t specific to the New York Post, it’s the approach of most major media outlets - as the account DataHazard found, the race of white murderers is made clear in more than 90% of news articles, but with black murderers, race is only mentioned in 30% of the article, and when it does appear, it’s usually much lower down in the text of the article.
So this is obviously a very intentional thing that they’re doing, and journalists do this in part to signal that they’re true believers in principles of “restorative justice.” And in the process, they’re denying the agency of black offenders by holding them to a completely different standard. These criminals get additional protections in the media, even when they commit heinous crimes, solely on the basis of their skin color. And now the state of Illinois is doing the same thing. It’s almost as if they hired the New York Post euphemism guy to write their legislation.
Now, to give the Left some credit, they understand the role of language in shaping policy, and shaping opinions and the views of the public. In order to normalize crime and pedophilia, they first need to change the way people REFER to crime and pedophilia. And that effort is now underway in Illinois, which means many more “justice-impacted individuals” will soon be out on the streets. It also means that many more innocent people—including children and pregnant women—will be impacted by these “justice-impacted individuals.” Because one euphemism at a time, in Democrat-run cities all over the country, it’s pretty clear that that’s the point.

Hi, Reddit!
I am finishing my master’s in English linguistics and I was hoping I could get some help with something. I’m running an experiment to test a hypothesis that my dissertation is based on. It aims to analyse some grammatical phenomena in British English. For this reason, my professor and I are in need of people willing to do the experiment.
The criteria to take part in it are: for the participants to be native speakers of British English and to be between the ages of 20-45. The test in the experiment is easy enough: all you have to do is to read some lines of dialogue and to choose from two options the one that, in your opinion, goes best with the rest of the sentence.
It shouldn’t take more than 20 minutes.
This is the survey: https://farm.pcibex.net/p/LLJssZ/
I’d really appreciate it if some of you could do it! Sadly, I don’t live/study in an English-speaking country and it’s been difficult finding native speakers of British English to help me with the experiment.
Thank you once more!

~First of all, some information about the script :~
I'm open to monetization as long as I receive credit. Minor adjustments to the script for recording are okay, as long as they maintain the original meaning. Adding sound effects or music isn't required, but it can enhance the story's immersion. The key is ensuring the listener understands the plot. My scripts are adaptable to any speaker or listener (A4A, M4A, F4A). If there are any uncertainties, feel free to ask for clarification.
Since English isn't my first language, please notify me of any errors in the script or story structure.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context :
You're a guard, employed at the largest prison in the country. Fortunately, you're not stationed in the most perilous wing. It's mostly uneventful, with your days spent overseeing high-profile thieves and escapees. However, when a dangerous criminal breaks out from the adjacent section, you find yourself at a loss and are compelled to collaborate with a somewhat unreliable inmate.
Audio length: ~1500 sw, 7 to 15min
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional info :
I wanted to emphasize the seductive and immature personality of the Speaker by having him give a nickname to the Listener. Since the Listener is a guard, I opted for 'Guardie,' which seemed neutral enough to me. However (and as I'm not a native English speaker), if it doesn't make sense or if it's not a catchy nickname, or if it's too hard to pronounce, feel free to change or remove it.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The scene takes place in a prison, with a cold atmosphere, and occasional background noises.]

Speaker: Oh, look who's here! If it isn't my favorite guard!
Speaker: Hey, don't be so grumpy, I know you've been longing to see me, haven't you?
[Speaker approaches the bars]

Speaker (flirting) : Did you come to see me for something specific, or do you already miss me from yesterday, Guardie ?
Speaker (closer): Or maybe you just came to admire my irresistible charm ?
[Listener sets a bag on the ground, rustling/impact noise]

Speaker (a bit disappointed): Oh. I see, you came to bring dinner.
Speaker (sarcastic): I know I know, I can’t leave my cell. But it's not like we're going to escape, right?
[Speaker sits down]

Speaker: A-ny-way. So, what goodies did you bring me today, Guardie?
Speaker (recalling): I hope it's not the same stew as yesterday. No offense, but it was simply repulsive!
Speaker (continuing): Honestly, I couldn't even identify what was in it. Were they turnips, or guts? I couldn't tell.
(Listener explains)
Speaker (disgusted and sarcastic) : Oh, so it's leftovers today… That means more stew for me… Yay…
Speaker: Hm?
(Listener brings a bag into Speaker's cell)

Speaker: Ohh, did you manage to find me something else? Let's see.
[Speaker rummages through the bag]

Speaker: So, what do we have here? Sandwiches, fresh fruits…
Speaker: Oh, and even chocolate bars. I must say I'm spoiled.
[Speaker opens one of the bars, plastic noise]
Speaker: But tell me, are you showing me special treatment by bringing all this?
Speaker (moves closer to Listener): Have I finally managed to charm you?
Speaker: Look at me, Guardie… Are you in love?
[Speaker quickly steps back]

Speaker (amused): Haha, don't look so tense, I'm just joking. …Or maybe I'm not?
[Speaker starts eating his chocolate bar]

Speaker (chewing): Anyway, this food is much better than yesterday's, so thanks.
Speaker (flirting again): I suppose you took quite some risks too. I'm touched, you must really love me a lot…
Speaker (amused): Haha, I can imagine you trying to be conscientious to bring me all this.
(Listener asks a question)

Speaker: What do I mean by that? Well, let's just say you're not the most meticulous.
Speaker: You're more of the clumsy type, you know?
Speaker (opens a sandwich pack): Don't tell me you forgot the time you locked yourself alone in one of the cells, haha. Fortunately, it was empty.
[Speaker eats his sandwich]

Speaker (continuing): If it weren't for the other guards, believe me : I would have succeeded in my escape attempts.
Speaker (bored): Especially that man, the department chief. He's really a pain in the neck.
[Speaker puts down the food]

Speaker: I mean, yes, he's annoying because he's always watching over me, and because of him, I can't escape. But well, it's his job after all.
Speaker: No, I resent him more because he's always sticking to you. What a clingy guy, always wanting to watch over the same places as you. I don't like that.
(…)
Speaker: Have you noticed how he follows you everywhere like your shadow? A little creepy if you ask me.
Speaker: Also, he spends his time trying to talk to you; he must not understand that you're quite calm.
(Listener intervenes)

Speaker: Well, it's true that I also try to get your attention whenever I can.
Speaker (bored): But I'm bored here! And having you nearby makes time pass more quickly. You're like my little play-thing, you see?
Speaker (softer): However, I never cross the line; I never insist when you don't want to talk to me.
[Speaker moves closer]

Speaker (teasing): Although, well, that doesn't happen often. Since you seem to love chatting with me.
Speaker: No, no, don't deny it, I can tell, Guardie.
(…)
Speaker (flirting): Don't worry; the feeling is mutual. I really enjoy spending time with you, even if it's in these conditions.
Speaker: And even if you're not the most careful guard, you have plenty of other qualities.
(…)

Speaker: Hey, it's true! I've noticed plenty of adorable things about you!
Speaker (a bit more serious): Like… I love it when I notice you doodling little cats on your notes. Oh, and I appreciate your ability to stay calm despite tensions in the cells; it's quite impressive.
Speaker (continuing): And that little tic you have of twirling a strand of hair around your finger when you're thinking… it's really cute.
Speaker: And above all, one of the things I love the most is your voice. Every time you find a moment to exchange a few words, I really appreciate its softness.

Speaker (proudly): So, you see? I really pay attention to you.
Speaker (speaking more softly): Not like Mr. Chief who thinks he's better than everyone else.
(…)

Speaker: But… Wait, after spilling all these compliments about you, I'm starting to think I'm the one falling for your charm.
Speaker (teasing): You know what? It doesn't sound too bad at all!
(Listener steps back)

Speaker (feigning sadness): Oh, I haven't even had the chance to make a confession yet, and you already seem to be rejecting me.
Speaker: Guardie, don't tell me you're afraid of commitment?
(…)

Speaker: Quite ironic for someone committed to justice, isn't it?
Speaker (flirting again): Anyway, now I understand a bit better why I'm more hesitant to attempt escapes. I wouldn't want to miss your sweet face.
Speaker: Hey, be honest with yourself; if I were gone, I know you'd miss me terribly too.
[Speaker and Listener hear a loud noise, like a door suddenly opening]

Speaker (slightly surprised): Did you hear that noise too?
Speaker (nonchalant again): Hm, anyway, no matter what it is, the other guards will be here soon.
Speaker (interrupting): I guess we'll continue our discussion a bit later…
[A gigantic, almost monstrous man enters, loud footsteps approaching]

Speaker (observing the man further behind Listener): Geez, what… what is that?
Speaker (incredulous): An inmate from another building? Did he manage to escape?
[Speaker observes the man]

Speaker: But he's huge!! He's a giant ! How did he manage to get away?
Speaker: Wait, that tattoo he has… I think I've seen it before. It looks like it's from a rather well-known gang, reputed to be merciless.
Speaker (amused): It seems this gentleman isn't a saint.
(…)

Speaker (collecting himself): Well, good luck catching him, Guardie. You're definitely going to need the help of your colleagues.
[Speaker moves away from the bars, comfortably sitting in his cell]

Speaker (yawning): Hm? What am I doing?
(…)

Speaker (playing innocent): Well, I'm just a naughty thief, so I'll stay safe in my cell. This brute can be as big and violent as he wants; he won't break the bars, so I'm safe.
Speaker (amused and nonchalant): Well, we can't say the same for you, so try not to die.
[More guards arrive, lighter footsteps]
Speaker (sarcastic): Oh, look, Mr. Chief of the department and his men have come to your rescue! How lucky you are!
[Loud noise, the guards are knocked out by the fugitive. Then the sound of people falling to the ground.]

Speaker: Oh… They have already been beaten by the giant
Speaker : Well, it looks like they weren't much help, haha…
[Again, loud footsteps approaching (loud footsteps, monster footsteps…)]

Speaker: Hm, looks like he's coming this way…
Speaker (amused): So, how are you going to handle this, Guardie? Do you have a plan?
(…)

Speaker (feigning sadness): Oh no, what a shame, you don't. If only someone could help you solve the situation.
Speaker (continuing): But all your colleagues are on the ground, and reinforcements will take some time to arrive… That's really unfortunate.
(Listener hesitates)

Speaker (acting surprised): Oh, you're asking me to team up? But I'm a naughty, wicked criminal.
Speaker (being dramatic): How could you, a figure of righteousness, ally yourself with someone as horrible as me?
(…)

Speaker: Oh? You need me? That's what I like to hear.
Speaker: Okay, then, I'll agree to help you.
(Listener is relieved)
[Possibility of adding noises of fracas, fugitive making noise in the background]

Speaker: Hey hey, don't look so proud of yourself so quickly. I'm not doing this for free. You'll owe me something.
(…)

Speaker: What do I want? Let me think… Hm…
Speaker: Oh, I know! I want you to give me an excellent review in your official reports. You'll have to describe my behavior as exemplary!
(…)

Speaker: Hey, don't make that face, it's not really lying! I've calmed down a lot since I got here! Besides, it's not like I'm in this prison for murders or worse!
Speaker: Oh, so you accept… Perfect.
Speaker: So, we have a deal. Now, as for my ultimate reward...
[Speaker teasingly approaches Listener.]
Speaker: I want you to grant me a date.
Speaker: Yes, you heard that right. When I'm finally released from this place, I want you to show me around the city, like a real date.

Speaker: Delighted to see we can come to an agreement! Deal sealed then.
(Listener unlocks the Speaker's cell) [Sound of keys]

Speaker (stepping out of the cell): Don't worry, Guardie, with me by your side, you have nothing to fear.
Speaker (turning towards the fugitive): Well, I didn't expect to have to fight so soon, but oh well. Now, looks like it's just you and me, big guy!
[Sounds of struggle, the fugitive making noise in the background]

Speaker (attacking the fugitive): Take that !
[Sound of impact, but the fugitive retaliates]
Speaker: Argh!
Speaker: You're not getting away that easily!
[Sound of a blow]

Speaker: Damn, is he tireless or what? Ah-
[The fugitive tries to hit the Speaker, but the Listener prevents him, a movement noise]

Speaker (grateful): Thanks, Guardie, it's a good thing you're here!
Speaker (addressing the fugitive): I love sparring with you, Mr. Killer, but I think it's time to end this charade!
[Speaker delivers a decisive blow, catching the fugitive off guard and pinning him to the ground, the sound of a crash]

Speaker: We did it!
Speaker: Quick, the handcuffs!
(Listener handcuffs the fugitive) [Handcuffs sound]

Speaker: Good job! You're not the worst ally I've had, that's for sure!
Speaker (teasing again): I hope all this brings us closer.
(…)

Speaker (flirting): You know, now that I'm out of my cell and close to you like this, it's pretty hard not to want to hug you…
[Sound of footsteps, other guards from other buildings arrive] [Speaker steps back]

Speaker (a bit disappointed): Well, it looks like reinforcements are here. I'd better hurry back to my cell if I don't want to extend my sentence.
[Speaker walks, Listener closes the cell with a key]

Speaker (amused): You should thank me. I'll let you take all the credit this time. You'll just have to say you managed to overpower this giant. Well, hopefully they believe you.
Speaker: Anyway, despite all the commotion, I'm rather grateful.
(…)

Speaker (smiling): Why? Well, because now I have a good reason to want to get out of this miserable prison.
Speaker: So, I'll have to behave myself. Now that I have the chance to go out with you, I can't let this opportunity slip away.
(…)

Speaker: Well, looks like they're calling you elsewhere.
Guardie: See you later, Guardie. I can't wait to see your sweet face again.

(End)
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's note : When I imagine the fugitive colossus, I think of Sloth from FMAB.