Is It Veterans’ Day, Veteran’s Day, or Veterans Day?

As November 11 approaches, some people may wonder how to write the name of the November 11 American holiday that commemorates the end of world-war hostilities in 1918 and 1945 as well as all who have served the U.S. Armed Forces. Do we use an apostrophe when spelling Veterans Day?

The answer is no. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, “The holiday is not a day that ‘belongs’ to one veteran or multiple veterans, which is what an apostrophe implies. It’s a day for honoring all veterans, so no apostrophe needed.”

  • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Yes, actually. I’m not saying that all killing is moral. but there are actually objectively bad people and organizations in the world. In one or two wars the US fought in, the US soldiers were actually fighting against objectively evil people and organizations. It’s fine to shoot nazis and slavers.

    • FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      Obviously most people agree that WW2 was justified to stop the Nazis conquering the world, but you can’t just say “it’s OK to kill someone because they’re X”, because then you just need to label whoever you dislike as part of that out-group and suddenly you’ve justified killing whoever you want.

      It’s never fine to say “it’s fine to kill all X”. You need to stop fascists, but you can do that without fucking killing anyone you’ve decided is evil.

      • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 days ago

        it’s fine to kill all X when X is objectively evil, like Nazis and slavers. They aren’t your friends, they’ll kill you and everyone you love without a second thought. It’s not time to play the nuance game and say “but but but killing is bad!”, yeah it is. it is bad.but the only way to stop fascism is by killing it. y you can’t debate it when the boot’s on your neck.

        • FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          I’m assuming the person you’re imagining to be objectively bad is either literally Hitler or a skinhead neonazi with swastika tattoos and a history of violence, right? What about people who joined the Nazi party because the alternative was having their lives destroyed, or the kid with a bad home life who was radicalised by a gang of thugs who are his only friends? They’re both fascists and victims of fascism, where do you draw the line at who should be killed?

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 days ago

            The line being drawn isn’t based on morality, it’s defending yourself and even more innocent people. By the time that radicalized guy has already become a Nazi, it no longer matters why he did it - he’s a danger to everyone, a rabid dog.

            It absolutely sucks to see this happen to someone who used to be a person.