I tried to correct someone's grammar and someone else wrote a multi-paragraph response on why "should of" is an acceptable alternative to "should have".

Best interaction of my life, unironically

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The best part is their autocorrect changed it to "should have", so they said something like "should have is just as correct as should have"

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 months ago

Damn, I remember that discussion.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There’s no reason a civil discussion can’t be had, even when the other person insists on being confidently incorrect.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But it's really funny to watch, especially if both of them are wrong and won't back down

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Just curious, what was the main gist of their argument?

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

Kind of like the more proper "hell of" instead of "hella."