My highschool teacher wanted us to use * and / as given in my example. I usually rephrase myself to not having to use / that much but idk if you can just use the male or female possessive pronoun to include everyone (if you use the * at some point in the sentence to make it clear) I honestly just use the / to be super sure.
As someone speaking a native language in which I need to rephrase myself multiple times and need to work with multiple / and * before a sentence is both grammatically correct and perfectly gendered - I still take my time because inclusion is worth it - I just don't get why anybody could ever be upset about English gender inclusive language.
An example:
Every cyclist should wear their helmet to protect their head from injury.
Jede/r Radfahrer*In sollte seinen/ihren Helm tragen, um seinen/ihren Kopf vor Verletzungen zu schützen.
We usually tend to rephrase these sentences like this:
Alle Radfahrenden sollten Helme tragen, um das Risiko für Kopfverletzungen zu minimieren.
All cyclists should wear helmets to minimise the risk of head injuries.
Since their profile picture is Komi Shouko from "Komi can't communicate", who is sometimes canonically portrayed with cat ears they are either joking or rejecting their true inner self.
I also wanted to throw Truman in the ring for signing off nuclear strikes on mainly civilian targets (i.e. cities) and for the American war crimes in Korea (but I mainly blame MacArthur for that) but he also fired MacArthur and roasted him and the other generals whilst doing so. So maybe somewhere in the top 15 to 25. If MacArthur's run for president had succeeded tho we'd have another strong candidate.
I found trolls on both instances and rational people on both instances but yeah, the debating culture & communities is/are more on 'grad and ml whilst hexbear is for the more casual topics and my opinion on which instance as a whole is more rational is like a sine curve.
Thanks for the explanation, my knowledge about American political history is fairly limited so I really appreciate that. (-)/
Most people who argued for Trump said it's because of Jan 6th and his other felonies and that he was allowed to run again and became reelected (even tho a partition of the us citizens are to blame for the latter). I also think people already value him lower because of Project 2025 and out of fear what will happen during his 2nd term.
I'd be lying if I wasn't aware I was poking the beehive so no need for you to be sorry (or at least I should say that I am sorry too). Plus I could have made it sound less like I was turning the US into some sort of punching bag for bad emotions but to be honest I have to admit I wasn't all too sober when I posted and whilst my main intention was curiosity I failed to phrase my question that way and I failed to filter my personal emotions so the question was negative. I'm yet another example why one shouldn't be allowed to use social media drunk and I am sorry for that. :')
I agree with your picks for good presidents and your reasoning. Thank you for the added details :)
I prefer talking about the best, talking about the worst just makes me depressed.
Oh I totally get where you're coming from. I usually use my lemm.ee account for when I'm stable enough for discussion (because lemm.ee is still federated with both hexbear and 'grad and .world and the more pro western servers which helps me train my critical thinking and arguing) but sometimes I just don't want any more negativity or politicised battlegrounds and then I just use my .world account to spread the good vibes and enjoy the memes.
Regarding JFK I heard he was a bit of a "you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain" kinda case but I also heard that he would have been a good president so I'm kinda split. It's similar with William Henry Harrison, who was president for 31 days before he died. As a slave holder he would have probably been a horrible president but he never really made any calls so he's not among the worst candidates.
Would that have changed much (Except for his name & face being literally everywhere in the US) or would they just have taken another founding father as their idol?
Touché. His first term wasn't that horrible (although it wasn't good either). I'm still mad they organised a meeting with Kim just to tell him to go fuck himself. That character development could become spicy. On the other hand would we even have had a meeting with Clinton in power?
But hey, he still has four years and a lot of plans to claim a podium place.
(But ngl I just really wanted to know what people would say. I find some answers very reasonable, others quite debatable. But I'd also be interested in what Lemmy thinks is the best president the US has ever had)
This isn't crimes against humanity, it's just a special bombing operation. For testing you know. How else do you know your bombs work if not by dropping them on indochina or the middle east? 乁| ･ 〰 ･ |ㄏ
My highschool teacher wanted us to use * and / as given in my example. I usually rephrase myself to not having to use / that much but idk if you can just use the male or female possessive pronoun to include everyone (if you use the * at some point in the sentence to make it clear) I honestly just use the / to be super sure.