I am a person who willingly eats Vegemite, so is my family, most of my friends, co-workers, acquaintances, the literal hundreds of children I’ve cared for in my line of work for the most part all eat vegemite.

More than 22 million jars of the stuff is produced annually, which points to the fact that a whole lot of people must be willingly eating it.

You’re not the main character. Your opinions are not the most important or the most correct.

You don’t need to understand. Vegemite is mass produced, and has been mass produced for decades upon decades. If people weren’t buying it, they wouldn’t be selling it. Therefore there are plenty of people who like it

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean others don’t.

Oh boy do I have a video for you. This guy has done a whole series on dishwashers and how to get the most out of them. Highly recommend them.

https://youtu.be/DAX2_mPr9W8

You’re really gonna call me out like this? On my Lemmy?

Love his little butthole

I disagree, they should be doing murder suicides with their commanding officers.

Human cows. Fetishising being milked and such.

Their issue isn’t that there is no women spaces, it that there are no women’s only spaces that excludes trans women.

In what world is using complex chemicals for combustion “primitive”? I don’t recall cavemen ever having access to explosives of any kind either.

You say that like organised religion doesn’t teach/encourage hate.

Damn, I wish that were me

Actually, after some further thought I’ve realised I was wrong actually. If you were to use the phrasing “decimated 10 percent of the population”, it wouldn’t be redundant it would just be straight up wrong. To decimate 10 percent of a population would mean either you killed 10 percent of 10 percent of the population (i.e. 1 percent), or it would mean you’ve killed a large proportion of that 10 percent of the population.

And of course my point about how using the phrase “decimating the population” on its own would lead to confusion for most people because when people think of “a large proportion of”, people generally think that it’s more than 10 percent.

You’ve been engaged enough to type out replies. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Your original comment didn’t stand “perfectly well on its own”, actually. Decimate meaning to destroy or kill a large proportion of something is just as literal as the definition you’re using, only the definition I’m using is much more commonly used and understood, so it generally takes precedence.

Everything about you and your smarmy act is redundant. Can you shut the fuck up? Thanks.

If you want someone to shut up on the internet, the best way to do it is to not engage them. Works just about every time in my experience. But you cared enough to engage and then engage again.

And if you don’t like smarmy people explaining things with a holier than thou attitude, engaging in internet discussion might not be the thing for you, you little piss baby.

That room looks expensive, so hope they’ll be my sugar daddy

Unnecessary or superfluous. For example: calling an ATM (automated teller machine) an “ATM machine”.

You seem to have missed the example I gave.

If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.

What would be redundant in this circumstance is saying decimate (e.g. to kill 10 percent of a group) 10 percent of the population. This is of course assuming that the person reading it knows the historical definition of decimate.

Furthermore I used the two different phrasings as examples because if you just wrote “they decimated the population”, most people would assume a number larger than 10 percent. But if you try and clarify by stating “they decimated 10 percent of the population”, and they know its historical definition, you’re being redundant.

So in conclusion, using decimate would either confuse people or be redundant.

As an aside; when you’re trying to report something, whether that be a current event or a historical one, you should be using language that the most people will be able to understand for the sake of clarity.

If it were phrased “they decimated the population” most would assume from the phrasing that it mean that you’re saying that a large proportion was killed, because that’s how that word is actually used in the English language. If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.

The definition of words reflect how we use them. An interesting fact is that scientists use Latin for scientific names of things because no one speaks Latin so the meanings of those words will not change with time. It’s the same in courts, you’ll find that a lot of old English words that aren’t commonly used in everyday conversation are used and that’s so that the meaning of things stay consistent over time.

Most people don’t know the historical definition of decimate, so using here it would be confusing or redundant.

Just like me fr