Comments by "weksauce" (@weksauce) on "How History Works" channel.

  1. Will you please hire me to narrate and pronounce words and names correctly? Typically, you get 1 word/name terribly wrong per video, but this one had at least 5.
    7
  2. "electrocuted to death" is redundant
    5
  3. Quash, not squash.
    4
  4. @@WaryofExtremes-still The issue with unions isn't whether or not they make things better for those inside them. I think (nearly) everyone agrees they do. The reason they're insufficient "solution" is <50% of people are employed at all, some fraction of people get union jobs, that fraction gets better pay and more job security, and then, likely, the larger fraction of people outside union jobs get less employment, less stable employment, and/or lower wages as a result of the lucky few unionizing.
    4
  5. Mughal
    4
  6. The nations mentioned are not communist. They're dictatorships that claim to be communist. It doesn't matter if a dictatorship self-identifies as democratic or communist or socialist. It is and can be none of those things, ever. Communism is democratic, by definition. All socialism is at least democratic for workers. Dictatorship is the opposite of democracy.
    2
  7.  @bebopuk  Killed, Electrocuted means exeCUTED by ELECTRicity.
    2
  8.  @danielhale1  Awesome still means worthy of awe. Decimated still means effectively the same thing. It didn't evolve, it just got used more generally, less specifically. Electrocuted means executed by electricity. You can argue all you like, but fortunately, language is bigger than you.
    2
  9.  @danielhale1  No, decimated meant reduced TO 1/10, by execution of a military legion, not as an example, but as the only meaning. Now it still means to MOSTLY destroy, but NOT totally. Awe is still awe, always was. No need for terror in awe.
    2
  10. It's "quash" dissent, not "squash" dissent.
    2
  11. Please stop misusing "begs the question". You don't speak English.
    2
  12.  @bebopuk  The phrase "seriously injured by electricity". There is no single word.
    1
  13.  @bebopuk  It's already taken. It's obviously a portmanteau of ELECTRically exeCUTED.
    1
  14.  @bebopuk  Correct.
    1
  15.  @phosphatepod  There's no such thing as "the" definition of anything. Even Oxford, which is just some person or group of people, has more than one definition. It's pretty obvious that electrocute is a combination of electricity and execute. If you're not executed by electricity, you're not electrocuted. We have words like shock and jolt for when static, direct current, or alternating current electricity goes through you and doesn't kill (execute) you.
    1
  16.  @phosphatepod  Yes, you can use any definition(s) you want, just like Oxford, just like me. The point of selecting definitions is that you choose USEFUL definitions. Definitions that are internally consistent, help you think about the world more clearly, and communicate more clearly. It's obvious to anyone skilled in the art of semantics that electro-cute is a combination of other words, and thus, its meaning must be a combination of those words' meanings, or the semantic system is internally inconsistent. For example, you could construct a useless but internally consistent semantics where electrocute means injured or killed by electricity, electricity means electricity, and execute means injure or kill, but then you lose clarity of thought and clarity of communication, because execute only means to kill in this context, never to injure. An executioner is a killer, not an injurer, in all useful semantics. Thus, an electrocutioner is also a killer by electricity, not an injurer by electricity, in all useful semantics.
    1
  17.  @MisterFro9  Just not ALWAYS for unions in all cases, like he said.
    1