Secession vs. Succession

[Frodo]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'? 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I do, but all malapropisms irritate me, so it's not too important.

[SPC]

Yep, especially when they are in favor of it.

[politicallefty]

     I do, but all malapropisms irritate me, so it's not too important.

This. It reads so odd when it's done. I hope no one's pronouncing them the same.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

     I do, but all malapropisms irritate me, so it's not too important.

[angus]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'? 

Depends upon the context.  Once in a while it makes for wonderful unintended poetry.

your substituted for the contraction of you are is the only one that consistently gets under my skin.

[Leftbehind]

I haven't seen anyone do it to get annoyed (presumably because the phrase is used more in US). I suppose my biggest irritation would be the amount of times I've seen lose spelt as loose.

[angus]

I haven't seen anyone do it to get annoyed (presumably because the phrase is used more in US).

What do your newspapers call it?  I guess you could call it separation.  In the US the adjective "separatist" is used to modify the noun "movement" such as when discussing Basque political activism or South Sudan, but the act is almost always referred to as secession.  

Incidentally, I don't recall any newspapers or magazine writers substituting succession for secession.  I only ever see that mistake on this forum, and only from a few posters, but many of them make it in a way that it comes off as ironical, because the mistake is usually made when someone is talking about a US state legislature taking it upon itself to gain independence from the federal government.  You get comments like:  "Obama says we should not return to the way things were.  He's wrong.  That's why the succession movement is so popular."  (note the paradox.)  Well, that wasn't very good really.  I'm trying to make one up.  There was one post, and I forgot its author, but he typed succession for secession.  Clearly he meant secession, but if it was read literally, then the post had the opposite effect than was intended.  It was positively delicious.

[Leftbehind]

 

Yes, seperatist or independence.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'? 

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

[Franzl]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'? 

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Oh God just shut up. A broken record is less annoying.

[Simfan34]

Yep, especially when they are in favor of it.

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'? 

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Oh God just shut up. A broken record is less annoying.

Broken records, can, in fact, be very enjoyable.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I wouldn't be surprised if Alabama ever tried to secede, but I would be highly surprised if they succeeded. At anything unoffensive, really.

[Donerail]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'? 

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

[SPC]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'? 

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

Those Democrats are now dead.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'?  

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

Those Democrats are now dead.

Yeah, but would YOU want to support Democrats if you knew about that, no matter how long ago it was?

Oh God just shut up. A broken record is less annoying.

Broken records, can, in fact, be very enjoyable.

Any records can be enjoyable.  

[Oak Hills]

I have heard people pronounce the word "secession" as if it was "succession" and yes, it irritates me very much.

[Gass3268]

Damnit, is this my fault with my timeline?

[SPC]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'?  

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

Those Democrats are now dead.

Yeah, but would YOU want to support Democrats if you knew about that, no matter how long ago it was?

I'm an advocate of secession, so yes. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party no longer has the platform it did in the 19th century, as everyone except yourself seems to have noticed.

[Kitteh]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'?  

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

Those Democrats are now dead.

Yeah, but would YOU want to support Democrats if you knew about that, no matter how long ago it was?

I'm an advocate of secession, so yes. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party no longer has the platform it did in the 19th century, as everyone except yourself seems to have noticed.

Something about this response is really awesome.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'?  

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

Those Democrats are now dead.

Yeah, but would YOU want to support Democrats if you knew about that, no matter how long ago it was?

I'm an advocate of secession, so yes. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party no longer has the platform it did in the 19th century, as everyone except yourself seems to have noticed.

Something about this response is really awesome.

So what?  It was still their platform.  Would you want to be a Democrat if you knew about that?

[Kitteh]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'?  

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

Those Democrats are now dead.

Yeah, but would YOU want to support Democrats if you knew about that, no matter how long ago it was?

I'm an advocate of secession, so yes. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party no longer has the platform it did in the 19th century, as everyone except yourself seems to have noticed.

Something about this response is really awesome.

So what?  It was still their platform.  Would you want to be a Democrat if you knew about that?

Yes.

[Brittain33]

Who else gets irritated when someone (presumably accidentally) substitutes 'succession' for 'secession'?  

A little.  What annoys me more is when Republicans in states like Texas talk about secession because of Obama when it was Democrats who supported secession because of Lincoln.

Hmm... could that maybe suggest that those Democrats are now Republicans?

Those Democrats are now dead.

Yeah, but would YOU want to support Democrats if you knew about that, no matter how long ago it was?

I'm an advocate of secession, so yes. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party no longer has the platform it did in the 19th century, as everyone except yourself seems to have noticed.

Something about this response is really awesome.

So what?  It was still their platform.  Would you want to be a Democrat if you knew about that?

How many Democrats have to respond to your question with "yes" before it acquires meaning?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - the Democratic Party was on the wrong side of many civil rights issues for a good stretch of its history, a stretch that ended conclusively in the 1960s with LBJ forcing the issue and aligning the Dems with civil rights enforced by the federal government. If I were alive and voting at different eras of history, I'd hope I'd have voted Republican. But none of that has anything to do with my preference now, when the issues matrix has changed and people have resorted themselves into different parties.