The small school I taught at said the pledge every day, but the principal did regularly announce to everyone present that they don't have to say it (but they did have to be there for it)
There's just a lot of anti trans stereotypes in media that I tolerated before. It's a lot harder to turn a blind eye to it when people use the same misunderstandings to try and tell me I'm sick and confused and bad for just being myself these days
There are so many examples of anti trans sentiment in older comedy. Just about all of them hinging on the "you can always tell" myth and/or highlighting how obviously wrong and confused the poor trans people must be. For someone whose only exposure to trans people was that for a long time, I can't begin to say how damaging and limiting that was.
I think a large and important difference is the ease of back-room manufacturer. Anyone with a boiler can can make some alcohol, but vapes are rather more complicated, no? Cigarettes and other straight up smoking products would still be around, though.
If no evidence whatsoever for a claim exists, then there is no reason to favor that claim. This is an effectively rare situation, and basically only applies to things someone has made up whole cloth just now.
Likewise, the existence of some evidence is not necessarily definitive "proof" of a claim, merely enough of a reason to consider it further (such as considering alternative explanations or how well said evidence matches what we might expect)
In this case, there is evidence that somebody named Jesus may have existed, and however ideal that evidence may or may not be, it is about the amount of evidence we would expect to find of any given figure from his time.
I will say that while evidence existing isn't definitive proof, the total lack of evidence would be convincing (in the other direction). That said, evidence does exist in this case, so
You do know that you do it too, right? Even many words being spelled "correctly" and used "logically" have changed in meaningful ways. It might annoy when someone now says "I'm literally dying" after a joke, but once upon a time "incredible" meant "totally lacking credibility" and not "amazing". Language changes. In French, you negate a verb by saying "not verb step". Taken literally, it's the same meaningless gibberish as "could of," yet it's good enough for l'Académie Française while "could of" is abhorrent? I get that it's not how you'd like to communicate, and not how you'd like others to communicate with you, but it also isn't inherently bad or undesirable, since clearly that is how many people communicate.
So communicate the way you prefer, and make it known that you'd prefer that. But also, don't tell others they're wrong for reasons that are, ultimately, just as arbitrary as theirs.
But that is what Randall's talking about. People who often read and write with text speech and frequent misspellings and such actually score better at spelling and grammar tests. It's not that they don't know how to do better, it's that they're choosing not to. That's how their audience communicates, so it's how they do too.
