You're viewing a single thread.
Why do some people keep trying to incite violence over and over again, day by day? It gets tiring, and we all know it's not going to happen, there's no revolution of that nature in the future. Most people want safety, stability, and prosperity.
Put the energy into trying to affect change by voting in the right people into office so they can affect the change for us.
And yeah, I know, that's a hard lift, but still, it's better for Humanity overall in the long run. Once you start violence, it rarely stops until everything is destroyed.
This is a funny comic. The person it's "inciting violence" against, Ayn Rand, has been dead for 42 years.
Put the energy into trying to affect change
That's effect change. It starts with an E.
Put the energy into trying to affect change
That’s effect change. It starts with an E.
From Merriam Webster dictionary...
Affect is usually a verb meaning "to produce an effect upon," as in "the weather affected his mood." Effect is usually a noun meaning "a change that results when something is done or happens," as in "computers have had a huge effect on our lives."
It's with an 'A'.
But I'll be sure to yell at my voice-to-text mode on your behalf, for getting it wrong in your eyes.
Keep reading.
From your source:
There are, however, a few relatively uncommon exceptions, and these are worth knowing about.
Effect can be a verb. As a verb, effect generally means "to cause to come into being" or "accomplish."
the strike effected change within the company
A Few Rare Exceptions
I'll go with the version that's a verb most of the time, and is not the exception to the rule.
You'd have to use a different phrase, then. I think it's easier to just remember that "effect a change" starts with an E, but maybe that's just because I've seen it in print so many times.
I mean I showed you the literal dictionary definition. I'm not quite sure why you're still trying to bend things in the opposite direction. At this point I think we've discussed this enough.
And I showed you how you were wrong in your own source, and you're still arguing.
And I showed you how you were wrong in your own source, and you’re still arguing.
What you showed me was a rare exception that didn't cover my use case.
I think the main issue is that violence is being waged against 90%+ of the population in terms of division via media outlets, price gouging, wage reduction, removal of safety nets, busting unions, restricting how people can protest, police brutality, a system that blocks positive change, etc
All of this gets obscured because you aren't seeing billionaires directly killing people, but that is the outcome, hundreds of millions of people have suffered or died because of their actions.
At what point do we say enough is enough? When do we remind them that they should fear us?
At what point do we say enough is enough? When do we remind them that they should fear us?
You're absolutely right that the common man gets played constantly, to be controlled. I won't argue that point.
But advocating for violence so early in the process is just wrong, and it would just not happen.
People want safety, stability, and prosperity, and trying to get them to go against that to affect the change that you're advocating is just too much of an ask, and it's not right, as once humans go violent everything goes up in flames.
There are more things that can be done between doing nothing, and sparking a revolution, that haven't been tried yet.