Not in any way /meaning/ to defend them, but I think the argument is that multiple of the 4 characteristics (speaking Spanish, looking Hispanic, certain jobs, I forget the 4th) taken together is supposedly justification, but not any given one of them alone.

Im not a Bible scholar. I have always taken the distinction between abolish and fulfill here to be, I’m not here to say the old law was wrong and so let’s get rid of it, I’m here to say we have completed the period of time for which the old law was right, and we have a new way going forward for this new time.

At what point do the eight different megacorps who each want half of my money go to war with each other when I can’t actually buy their product anymore and just die?

Perpetual Motionney Machine

(movie trailer voice) They made fun of liberal weenies.

(character from movie) Universal Healthcare is only bad for insurance executives!

(movie trailer voice) They ridiculed queer voices.

(movie caricature of bi guy at a protest, southern U.S. accent) The Bible says Adam AND Eve, not Adam OR Eve!"

(movie trailer voice) This summer, the Left strikes right back.

July 4

SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR
[This film is not yet rated]

Global bowel movement, more like.

PAGEant pervert, nooo

The Federation doesn’t attempt communication or diplomacy.

I understand where you’re coming from broadly with your thesis, and I agree with you more than I want to. The above line struck me, though, because The Left writ large at least has been trying to communicate and attempting diplomacy with our Bugs for decades, and especially lately it’s become essentially useless.

I get the slightly-downvoted state I found this comment in, but I thought it was a perfect reference.

I know, right? Jack Thompson called, he wants his shtick back.

Proof:

His only regret was that he had Boneitis.

I saw the reply in my inbox and had a reaction to “females” there, like “ugh, not one of THESE folks who still talk like that.” Because I didn’t remember the nature of this thread until I got back into the comments :)

Bonus points if you instead say she is being hysterical.

As bitjunkie said, if you were referring to 90s in the possessive, it would be 90s’ since it’s a plural noun already - much like parents’ mortgages or stores’ buildings.

That said, I would probably look at the phrase “90s child” as either (1) a compound noun not needing anything to be possessive (like “ice cream”), or (2) with “90s” as an adjective modifying “child” (like “latchkey kid”).

'90s is a contraction of 1990s, or whatever other century’s tenth decade is implied. So the apostrophe belongs as an example of a contraction or possessive :)

Partly its about reminding his supporters and the neutrals that the people who actively dislike him really do exist. One of their talking points around election fraud/denialism is the idea that there just aren’t enough voters against Trump to justify the votes, because that’s what they’re told.

Granted, they’re also told that people like these booers are all paid actors. Paid by whom, and how do they keep anyone from blabbing about these arrangements?

Anyway, every person who gets splintered off from the Trump Train is a win, so push every way you can.

Basically apostrophes are never used to separate a word from a normal suffix in this kind of novel or unusual construction. Pretty much just use apostrophes for contractions and (most) possessives. Example: 90s, not 90’s.

–

Edit: In English, for English words. Some languages, either those normally rendered in Latin script* or transliterated into it**, make use of apostrophes either to modify an adjacent phoneme or to indicate particular sounds or a glottal stop.

* English-like letters and punctuation

** Like Japanese written as if it were English, for example “Ohayo gozaimasu” which is written in hiragana as おはようございま.

Source: Amateur with the dangerous amount of a little knowledge

–

Edit2: Others point out (correctly) that referencing the 1990s as a decade would be properly written as '90s, which is still a use of an apostrophe for a contraction.

Modify as you will.

It would be helpful if it weren’t so profitable for media organizations to spend so much time convincing people that other people aren’t kind, so why bother.