Think of foreign policy as a ladder, and you are the person in charge of your country (or at least their foreign relations). Each rung is a new action you can take to influence the behavior of other countries.

The first step is formal communications. That’s easy, you’re probably on that step with just about every other nation. The next few rings are all other friendly diplomatic steps, things like opening embassies, making trade agreements, non-aggression pacts, etc.

Now let’s say a neighboring country is doing something you don’t like. Your nation’s grievance with them will fall into one of a few broad categories: they are a threat to your security, they are a threat to your interests, or they are a threat to your honor (meaning your international reputation). Whatever the reason, your job is to change their behavior and none of the previous steps on the ladder have worked, so now you climb higher.

The next rungs are less friendly, but are still diplomatic. These are things like denouncements, cessation of trade, tariffs, and sanctions. At the very top of this set of rungs, you close your embassy and demand they close theirs. You break off most communication. Finally, you tell the whole world why they have wronged you.

Now you’ve done everything you can diplomatically, but their behavior is still a threat to your security, interest, or honor. How do you change their behavior? There are more rungs on the ladder.

Going all the way back to Sun Tzu, generals have known that their job was to take over when the diplomats failed. This doesn’t mean that total war is immediate or inevitable. The military could conduct raids, surgical strikes, or enforce an embargo. Warfare is simply the top rungs of the ladder of foreign policy. Some nations climb it more quickly or willingly than others, but war exists on the same spectrum as diplomacy.

Don’t you mean you h*te it?

That level of change took centuries and I still understand it.

The internet speeds up change to the point where we’ll lose intelligibility.

Yep, real childish of me to insist that our goddamned primary communication protocols remain consistent because it would cut down on fun improvisation.

Yeah, I missed “to mean”. Looks like at least one other guy did, too.

Sure, but Jesus Christ fucking up part of speech is a childish mistake to embrace. Maybe we shouldn’t just go along with every fuckup people on Tic Tok lean into.

It is the proper usage.

Then your example should have been “this house is aesthetic”. Aesthetic is being used as an adjective.

Saying “this house has a pleasing aesthetic” is correct. Aesthetic is being used as a noun. “Pleasing” is the adjective. While the aesthetic is not defined enough to your liking, it isn’t being used as an adjective.

Use your original wording and replace the word “aesthetic” with the word “quality”. “This house has a pleasing quality” is a proper sentence. Sure, there’s ambiguity as to what that quality is (is it the shape of it? Is it the color? Perhaps the landscaping?), but it isn’t grammatically incorrect.

Lemmy is full of lunatics. You found one.

Yeah, OP might just be a dumbass.

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

Send a bondulance, I’m having a stronk.

Yes, “on point” is slang, but only just recently. Slag is just a little further down the scale in terms of specialized language.

The real test is how accepted a word or phrase is with the larger population using a given language (while keeping a specific meaning in mind). This gets a little muddied with the lingo used by larger groups.

For instance the phrases “weird” and “cat lady” have both been co-opted by the major political parties in this election to decide their opponents. Because they each have so many members and because their discourse is covered by media outlets the new connotations of those phrases will be more widely known outside of the group and will stop being lingo much faster than the phrases you use privately with your family or coworkers.

“On point” used to be lingo in the military once upon a time, but because of the size of the military (and aided by the internet) it has become slang and is no longer a phrase only used by a certain group.

And there’s the rub. Lingo isn’t inherently evil, in fact it’s necessary to get through day-to-day life. You can’t refer to every tool you use on the job with a short sentence explaining what it is, you say it’s name and the people you work with know what you’re talking about. The only time lingo must be avoided is when talking about something you’re familiar with with someone who isn’t to avoid putting them off or confusing them.

The real danger is people not realizing how (contrived, constantly changing) lingo can be used to manipulate them, specifically how it drives tribalism and the “us versus them” mentality. This is especially important given how political movements and other groups behave online, and how prevalent this tactic has become over the past decade.

Lingo is a powerful social tool. Once you know to look for it, you see it everywhere.

Some lingo is always necessary for jobs to communicate complex ideas quickly. Everyone has terms and phrases used in their profession that are exclusive to it, as well as some that are exclusive to their workplace. People outside of their job don’t know the lingo, those inside do. In this way lingo is a double-edged sword: it eases communication, but creates a social barrier between those in the know and everyone else.

In an increasing number of places this isolating side effect has been used by certain groups as the motivation for them to contrive lingo. For a long time this was largely relegated to cults and other fringe groups that wanted to shore up the feeling of togetherness of the people within and keep them away from outsiders.

The big change was when groups found that by constantly changing the lingo they could induce two other effects: the exclusion of outsiders and exerting control over existing insiders. The MBA/business types are a prime example of this. For people in or seeking to be a part of the group knowing the latest buzzwords is a must, and not knowing them or using outdated ones opens them up to being ostracized. People who are “in” must constantly stay up to date, thus staying attentive to the trends of the group. At the same time people with a casual interest or interaction are actively dissuaded by how often unfamiliar words are used by members of the group.

This sort of weaponized use of lingo is much more widespread these days. Once you see it in this case you can find it in just about every flavor of modern political group and online forum. If you find a group that seems to always be changing its buzzwords, buyer beware.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Lemmy is an anus of a platform filled with lunatics.

Given that you think Putin is promising people immortality, I doubt it.

I’m not entirely certain you’re thinking straight. You’re coming off a little unhinged.

Age and maturity are not the same thing.

Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.

Yeah, in a nutshell…