The original version of the comment said, I believe “So there is precedence”. That could be fixed as “there is a precedent” or “there are precedents”. I suggested “precedents” because it seems like OP used the homophone for that one. So, “precedents” is correct, “precedence” is not.
There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.
Bruh, you said “Bruh. If you’re going to correct, be sure you’re correct.”, when I was correct and OP was incorrect.
There are precedents. There is precedent.
Edit: changed i to e.
Before OP edited the comment it used “precedence”. They mean different things.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-precedent-vs-precedence
https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/precedence_precedent.htm
https://languagetool.org/insights/post/precedence-or-precedent/
https://www.thoughtco.com/precedence-precedents-and-presidents-1689468
What’s next, are you going to claim “presidents” is another alternative spelling that means the same thing?
I understand that. You used plural when you should have used singular.
They said “there is precedence” which you corrected to “prescedents” but the correct form in the example is “there is precedent”.
Edit:
There was fuck all need for that. I actually mostly backed you up in another comment.
The original version of the comment said, I believe “So there is precedence”. That could be fixed as “there is a precedent” or “there are precedents”. I suggested “precedents” because it seems like OP used the homophone for that one. So, “precedents” is correct, “precedence” is not.
Bruh, you said “Bruh. If you’re going to correct, be sure you’re correct.”, when I was correct and OP was incorrect.
Precedents is not correct. Precedent is.
That depends on the wording.