These people found out that interacting with the government has a negative effect on your mental health, or that “looking for job is stressful,” and somehow decided to build a narrative around how “socialist welfare is good.”

In English we don’t write commas or periods outside the quotes. The proper way is to write them inside the quotation.

- “defect,” a flaw, an error.

- about giving a dam.”

Don’t get me started about “for purposes TBD later.”

The other person who replied to you noted that this is not true in British English, but beyond that, it appears to me that my generation (Millennials) essentially all came to the same conclusion, which is that punctuation should only be included in the quotation if it's literally part of the text being quoted. (This probably has something to do with the programming mindset.) If you write

>The senator said that the bill was "bloated."

your sentence itself doesn't have a period. In order to give it a period you'd have to write:

>The senator said that the bill was "bloated.".

But then you're saying that the senator described the bill using the (non-)word consisting of the nine characters 'b', 'l', 'o', 'a', 't', 'e', 'd', 'PERIOD'. We've decided that this doesn't make sense.

Your point that this is a generational change is interesting and reminds me of boomers who still write double space after a period.

That’s only the case for American English. British English places periods and commas outside the quotes, unless part of a literal quotation.

It’s because you were not really tallying.

I did the tallying for you. When specifically two countries were mentioned and it wasn’t clear which country the good deed happened in, I awarded 0.5 points to each of those countries.

The top country that is specifically mentioned is the USA. Of countries that are specified as non USA, they accumulated 34.5 points. The USA accumulated 37.5.

The tallying was done at 4:03 PM UTC on December 14, 2025

Here is the {position, score, country} list

#0. 42 Country not mentioned

#1. 37.5 USA

#2. 6.5 UK

#3. 5 Japan

#4. 4 Australia

#5. 2.5 Germany

#6. 2 Canada

#6. 2 India

#7. 1 Argentina

#7. 1 Bethlehem (Roman Empire, ~4 BCE)

#7. 1 Costa Rica

#7. 1 Iceland

#7. 1 Jordan

#7. 1 Nigeria

#7. 1 Norway

#7. 1 Philippines

#7. 1 Poland

#7. 1 Spain

#7. 1 Tahiti

#7. 1 Taiwan

#8. 0.5 France

Does this tallying account for context clues that make the country being non-US apparent?

Yes, but for all countries, not just for the US. If a place was mentioned, I googled it to figure out the country.

Why not?

Your comment history is very odd. Your grammar is always perfect as though you are well-reasoned, but this very comment of yours shows you committing an ad hominem fallacy, shifting attention from the argument to something irrelevant about the person, indicating that you are a Pedantic ad hominem attacker.

I don’t even disagree with you, I just find it weird that someone who benefitted from the immigration system would be so fixated on nativism.

You are speculating wildly.

You don’t have to be racist. Even British can be bad spellers. And non native English speakers can be perfect English grammarians.

In America, foreigners can be citizens.

In certain polls, not all legal immigrants want America to become their shitty country they came from. Maybe that’s why they came in the first place?

What statement of mine is “fixated on nativism”?

American engineers can be bad grammarians too.

The trump administration is labeling people against fascism as domestic terrorists. Please don’t make this website Reddit with your idiotic views about ‘snowflakes’

People can be terrorists regardless of what they are against. You can be against anything you want, just don’t terrorize and nobody would call you a terrorist. And by the way many are foreigners, not domestic.

This is the moment for all those Hollywood personalities and other liberals to learn how to leave for real, not just talk about it!