A person whose; 1 direct flagrant furthering of normalizations of irresponsible choices,
or 2, deliberate lowering of values AROUND something where responsibility could-be lowered;
Is a part of a temporary or long-term group behavior or claimed demonstrative-positions amidst a wider debate or issue in society, but either way, their actions LEAD TO irresponsible behavior or the lowering of-levels-of responsibility, WITHOUT DIRECTLY ADVOCATING, the irresponsible behavior.
The maintenance of the position that causes this is an establishMENT of a maintained-position, hence the hybrid? err,.. tense-relative suffix ;
a -tant,
of a -ment.
It is this indirect causation, that makes the word a INCLUSIVE-noun term, it's not just an adjective prone to ambiguity or flexible meaning.
-ity/-tant/similar conjugations, infers irresponsibility-risk-causation AMONGST, their actions, character, or other personal things, or of a group, of the group's. The how or why, can be nearby the word itself, they do not need to be specified in the same sentence.
The -tant suffix denotes distinctly, that it is in the context of REPETITION, not something new, that is being defended or advocated. It can be evocative of PAST-irresponsibility, while being then adjectivally applied TO a person-noun, position, social-construct, etc - SEE example 2
or 2, deliberate lowering of values AROUND something where responsibility could-be lowered;
Is a part of a temporary or long-term group behavior or claimed demonstrative-positions amidst a wider debate or issue in society, but either way, their actions LEAD TO irresponsible behavior or the lowering of-levels-of responsibility, WITHOUT DIRECTLY ADVOCATING, the irresponsible behavior.
The maintenance of the position that causes this is an establishMENT of a maintained-position, hence the hybrid? err,.. tense-relative suffix ;
a -tant,
of a -ment.
It is this indirect causation, that makes the word a INCLUSIVE-noun term, it's not just an adjective prone to ambiguity or flexible meaning.
-ity/-tant/similar conjugations, infers irresponsibility-risk-causation AMONGST, their actions, character, or other personal things, or of a group, of the group's. The how or why, can be nearby the word itself, they do not need to be specified in the same sentence.
The -tant suffix denotes distinctly, that it is in the context of REPETITION, not something new, that is being defended or advocated. It can be evocative of PAST-irresponsibility, while being then adjectivally applied TO a person-noun, position, social-construct, etc - SEE example 2
One could find irresponsibilitants amongst both republicans as well as democrats within U.S. Politics and their statements, but people might still disagree on how much and-WHEN the two sides lower-values or risk harmful behavior, when their statements and positions don't seem to be going to cover-everyone, affect those outside the USA but not those within it, or other omitted inevitabilities that send mixed messages if you mention them at the same time.
If both at least did not pretend as though they're going to cover or care for everyone, then at least they'd be being honest about what they claim to be going to do, but regardless, their KNOWING, irresponsibilital-concessions to whoever writes their speeches, suggests neither can say-no to rhetoric if it might give them an edge in the election.
---
example 2 - The belligerent, backward priest, refused to acknowledge the cultural damage his predecessors had caused on the claimant in court, but the judge made a decision for the claimant regardless, condemning the priest in their closing speech for trying to societally-normalize irresponSIBILITY while not appearing to be an irresponsiBILITANT at the same time, while having deceitfully and knowingly maintained one false-presentation to their donators, and another, to the supposed recipients of their at that time, assumed-genuine generosity.
If both at least did not pretend as though they're going to cover or care for everyone, then at least they'd be being honest about what they claim to be going to do, but regardless, their KNOWING, irresponsibilital-concessions to whoever writes their speeches, suggests neither can say-no to rhetoric if it might give them an edge in the election.
---
example 2 - The belligerent, backward priest, refused to acknowledge the cultural damage his predecessors had caused on the claimant in court, but the judge made a decision for the claimant regardless, condemning the priest in their closing speech for trying to societally-normalize irresponSIBILITY while not appearing to be an irresponsiBILITANT at the same time, while having deceitfully and knowingly maintained one false-presentation to their donators, and another, to the supposed recipients of their at that time, assumed-genuine generosity.
by Vurrath February 22, 2025