this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
328 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29917 readers
1974 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How would you word this different and have the same meaning?

Using “approves” is close but it changes the meaning of the headline and implies that their approval of this is needed when it is not.

[–] BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That means something different. Like I said, that implies that we need the courts permission which is not the case.

I can tell you are not going to let this go, but it will help you in life to understand when you are wrong and be ok admitting that to yourself.

[–] BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca -2 points 1 month ago

Wow no need to be an asshole. Whatever, guess I forgot nothing a court ruled has ever had weight my bad

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Local man allows wife to eat dinner."

vs

"Local man declines to block wife from eating dinner."

The meaning is very different.

[–] BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, when you change the context of the sentence, the meaning changes too. "A court allows" and "a man allows" aren't the same thing.

The court had an issue brought before it. It could either allow or disallow the usage of the maps. There isn't an in-between. Making a big deal over using "allow" for a court is so mind-numbingly, insufferably pedantic that I can't believe real people are actually up voting it.

"Approves" I can see a problem with because it implies that the court has made a final ruling. But being mad about it because of some moralizing nonsense is absolutely ridiculous.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

These kinds of small wording differences are one of the most common ways for news outlets to intentionally spread misinformation. If you already know what the current laws are, you'll know what actually happened. Otherwise, "declines to block" tells you that there exists pressure to prevent something that is currently allowed. "Allows" tells you that it wasn't previously allowed without their approval and they granted that approval.

It could either allow or disallow [...]. There isn't an in-between.

So in summary, there are exactly four "in-between"s.

  • It was previously allowed, and it is still allowed
  • It was previously allowed, and it is now not allowed
  • It was previously not allowed, and it is now allowed
  • It was previously not allowed, and it still not allowed

Which would map to each of the following respectively

  • "declines to block"
  • "blocks"
  • "allows"
  • "declines to allow"

What you're saying is that it should map to

  • "allows"
  • "blocks"
  • "allows"
  • "blocks"

Which, besides being inconsistent with how those words are used in every day English, also reduces how much information you receive.