Coming from somebody that made his first post days ago, this community is toxic. If you don't agree with them you are a scrub or you need to get "gud." You are wasting your breathe my friend. Irregardless of the fact that your post may have some truth behind it.
English
-
3 warlock noob
-
3 Warlocks, lol
-
Get bud bra irregardless is not a word lmao
-
One way to follow the progress of and sentiments toward irregardless is by studying how it is described in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged, 1934) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, and attributed it to the United States. Although irregardless was beginning to make its way into the American lexicon, it was still not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler's Modern English Usage,[6] published in 1965, nor was irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books, although commonly marked as substandard or dialect. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),[2] The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),[4] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).[3] The definition in most dictionaries is simply listed as regardless (along with the note nonstandard, or similar). Merriam–Webster even states "Use regardless instead." The Chicago Manual of Style calls irregardless "[a]n error" and instructs writers to "[u]se regardless (or possibly irrespective)."[7] Australian linguist Pam Peters (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004) suggests that irregardless has become fetishized because natural examples of this word in corpora of written and spoken English are greatly outnumbered by examples where it is in fact only cited as an incorrect term.