• taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    While it’s indeed fake, the satire was fun. It notes that whenever you see a Let’s Go Brandon bumper sticker, it’s in regards to this very famous gay porn star. Same with the chants. Those guys were just big fans of gay porn, y’know.

  • huppakee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    So the good news is he got 35 of 'em, the bad news is that it’s just 35 of 'em. Hope they’ll release him soon.

    • houndeyes@toast.ooo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Is it ever appropriate to use an apostrophe to pluralize a word?

      I stumbled upon exceptions on Wikipedia not long ago including, e.g., pluralizing single letters (Oakland A’s) and symbols (#'s).

      • uberfreeza@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I was wondering about that. I assumed there wasn’t exceptions, because those can still be possessive. Oakland A’s members or 13’s unlucky superstition. I’m not surprised though, because English is a stupid mess of a language.

    • huppakee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’m not natively English but isn’t that always when you could read it wrong without the apostrophe? E.g. it’s zoos and bows, but not hos?

      Edit: this example doesn’t really do much, since you could argue about it’s ho’s nazi or a nazi’s ho, and hoes is probably more correct anyway. I retract myself from this discussion.

      • Ekky@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not native either, but pretty sure apostrophe-s is about ownership whereas just s is about plural. eg.:

        “It’s a dog’s bark.”

        “The dogs are barking.”

        • Lasherz@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          “Its” vs “it’s” is probably the most common mistake in the English language. Apostrophe is used for ownership as well as contraction, BUT contraction supersedes ownership. So its means ownership and it’s means it is.

      • Slatlun@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not quite. No apostrophe usually means plural. With apostrophe means possessive or a contraction (what is to what’s). Its/it’s is an edge case where the possessive “its” has no apostrophe and contraction “it’s” does.

        All that being said, native speakers mistype all of these all of the time, so you don’t have to worry about it for casual conversation.

      • Lasherz@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Nah, but that is how some people view and use it. It doesn’t bother me personally if it seems intentional to quicken clarity. It at least makes more sense to me than possession on a name ending in ‘s’, E.G. Bernie Sanders’ policies. It breaks down further if the Sanders had a family reunion, what is the Sanderses’? Sanders’? preference for food?

        • huppakee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Afaik it’s not just how people use it but what has been agreed upon by the respective rulemakers. I was just commenting on whether it’s appropriate though, completely agree it’s arbitrary and imperfect.

          • Lasherz@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Gotcha and I agree about it being as clear as mud. Also your English is amazing. Like better than most native speakers

    • Janx@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Let’s”? That’s not plural, that’s a contraction. It’s short for “let us”.

  • Lasherz@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Least realistic thing about it is that if there were 35 Neonazis in one place that the cops wouldn’t be there too.

  • kgbbot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    35‽ Wow, either he was on a super cocaine rampage or the Nazis are bigger pussies than we realized…

    My money is on the naizs = pussies