Man, I don't EVEN have an opi--

How is that money "lost"? It translates into one hell of a lot of jobs, which translate into money spent in all the surrounding businesses, all benefitting local taxpayers, which, of course, translates into more tax revenue. Comparably little (not none obvs, we live in a capitalism) of that goes to actual billionaires, at least compared to loads of other ways we could spend those billions.

Money only works if it moves.

Well, a lot of these things are really opinions, or colored by your feelings about them. If I call my dog a sweet little old girl, does it sound wronger if it's an 80 pound puppy GSD with an "old soul"?

But suppose you're right and we disallow anything outside of the opinion category, unless it can be shown to be objectively true. What if my keister was purple, because of the color of my pants? No opinion there. Ugly purple no-good keister sounds about as right or slightly better than ugly no-good purple keister.

I agree that the rule seems plausible because lots of parts of it work, and lots of examples of things sounding right or wrong come to mind, but it seeming plausible doesn't mean it's true, if that makes sense. I would want to see statistics. I want to see someone say "we ran this corpus of 30,000 books through a computer, used this natural language processor to categorize every string of consecutive adjectives, and found that such and such percent of them fit the rule perfectly. The violations were mostly of so and so"

Tbh I'm probably not going to do it or look into it too much, I ain't got time, and I'm sure there's a grad student this would be perfect for. But without a more rigorous analysis, I'd hesitate to pass on the rule as if it were true.

One I saw earlier was "ugly, yella, no-good keister," which sandwiches color between two opinions.

But...that example breaks the alleged rule. Ugly and no good are both opinions, yella is a color. If the rule really worked without exception, this would sound wrong and strange to us, but "ugly, no-good, yella keister" would sound normal. I'd say the opposite is true, the one following the rules sounds a tiny bit worse but is also pretty much fine.

I feel like this needs vetting. From what I can tell this assertion has been attributed to like one source and from there passed around like it's fact. My gut tells me this is one of those things like "i before e," with tons of exceptions, ambiguities, and variation, but I admit i don't have the research.

What about axolotls?

God, that's barbaric. They have so much life ahead of them.