[kristopolous]

An grammar so no because no rules yes Have. then its they're simple she Great understand your of problem in yes?

Or did I break some rules there?

We're not talking Oxford commas here. There are fundamental structures.

For instance, If I made that "are there fundamental structures" then it's a question.

Basic grammar is very real and not some subjective ephemeral thoughtstuff with wildly different opinions. It's so obvious that you don't even question it.

That's the way most things are - how to operate a faucet, close a window, put on a shirt, open a cabinet, use a fork... Most things in life aren't controversial.

Even the controversial ones like what's art and what's music, it's just a small periphery that's questioned. A symphony played by an orchestra is music, a painting in a museum is art - even these subjective categories substantially have extremely wide agreement.

True controversy is an outlier. (Ie, is 4'33" by John Cage music?)

You can claim whatever you want but with just things that's just exercising the freedom to be wrong.

[reverius42]

It was more the correct spelling claim I object to. Considering all variations of English.

[kristopolous]

The point stands. Things are often depicted too binary and simplistic. Many subjective things also get smuggled in as if they were objective to hide their ideology and the word "truth" is used to stop people from questioning things.

I'm totally onboard with that.

At the same time, when talking about the physical world, most things are not like that. Humans for instance, get around by moving limbs called feet and not flapping feathered wings like a bird. This is the level of obvious I'm talking about.

The secondary point was that many things are this level of obvious and also specialized. For example: how does the animal cacomantis castaneiventris get around? Unless you have some kind of specialized knowledge you wouldn't know that's a type of bird.

The internet is awash in unspecialized people opining on specialized knowledge that is only controversial to the untrained eye in the same way that students don't get As on every exam they take. You need to actively work around people talking out of their bounds if you want your training data to be accurate