Warning - aware of scammers!

[morqthana]

All law abidding people need the right to defend and protect,

Proportionately.

Reasonably.

Threatening a delivery scammer with a firearm is neither proportionate nor reasonable.

put your head above the parapet and become an antisocial scumbag then you have to take the consequences, if that entails someone putting you in hospital then maybe lesson learnt.

No - you are advocating criminal violence there.

If asked, I would have guessed that you were keen on people behaving in law abiding ways.

We have become to soft with criminals, our prisons need to be more like the Bangkok prisons where if you survive you will not want to return.

Would you be interested to learn that your approach is actually the opposite of an effective policy? (Assuming that you would like people to not reoffend?)

Do you actually want to drive up reoffending rates?

 

[artie]

Would you be interested to learn that your approach is actually the opposite of an effective policy? (Assuming that you would like people to not reoffend?)

I think we need a source for that?

 

[Spectric]

Would you be interested to learn that your approach is actually the opposite of an effective policy? (Assuming that you would like people to not reoffend?)

Read this book and tell me if after going through this you would re-offend ?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Damage-Done-Twelve-Bangkok-Prison/dp/184018275X

 

[Jacob]

Dictionaries record common usage, not necessarily correct usage.

Common usage is correct usage.
What a word means is what the majority of people who use the word intend it to mean. A minority might disagree but they have been out voted!

 

[morqthana]

I think we need a source for that?

https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=bridges
https://www.quora.com/What-countries-criminal-justice-systems-have-the-lowest-recidivism-rates
http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Deady_march2014.pdf

 

[morqthana]

https://newbloommag.net/2019/09/14/thai-carceral-state/
https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/25230/reduce-recidivism.pdf

 

[morqthana]

Common usage is correct usage.

A "race to the bottom" philosophy.

What a word means is what the majority of people who use the word intend it to mean. A minority might disagree but they have been out voted!

Given the (intent, at least) to teach everbody literacy, and the ubiquity of dictionaries, I'm not sure that an approach of "the lowest common denominator of ignorance" is the best way to organise language usage.

Consider a word defined in the dictionary, it really doesn't matter which, but to pick one as an example, let's pick "giraffe".

So, the dictionary has a definition for it. Here's one:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/giraffe
If one person says "this is a giraffe"

then they are wrong. They just are.

If 2 people say it's a giraffe, are they right?

20 people?

At what point do you think the world should give in and say "OK - forget what the dictionaries have said, you have suddenly become right, that is a giraffe".


And how? How does the world decide that?


And why? How does improve things?

When literacy rates were low, dictionaries effectively non-existent, people were using words inherited from "invaders" whose own culture had been subsumed, language evolved.

But today it isn't like that. There should never be a way in whiich enough ignoramuses can make this a giraffe

 

[Jacob]

A "race to the bottom" philosophy.

What would be a "race to the top" philosophy?

Given the (intent, at least) to teach everbody literacy, and the ubiquity of dictionaries, I'm not sure that an approach of "the lowest common denominator of ignorance" is the best way to organise language usage.

Consider a word defined in the dictionary, it really doesn't matter which, but to pick one as an example, let's pick "giraffe".

So, the dictionary has a definition for it. Here's one:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/giraffe
If one person says "this is a giraffe"

View attachment 139228
then they are wrong. They just are.

If 2 people say it's a giraffe, are they right?

20 people?

At what point do you think the world should give in and say "OK - forget what the dictionaries have said, you have suddenly become right, that is a giraffe".


And how? How does the world decide that?


And why? How does improve things?

When literacy rates were low, dictionaries effectively non-existent, people were using words inherited from "invaders" whose own culture had been subsumed, language evolved.

But today it isn't like that. There should never be a way in whiich enough ignoramuses can make this a giraffe

View attachment 139229

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
The meaning of a word is its usage.
If enough people decide to call chairs "giraffes" you will have a problem talking to them about chairs and/or giraffes unless you recognise the usage/change.
What you need to know to understand people is what they mean by a word, however "incorrectly" or however it was used previously. Or for that matter, whatever language they choose to speak.
Cockney rhyming slang is a case in point. Guess what is meant by "a rusty anchor" ("a rusty" for short)!

 

[morqthana]

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

I believe it does.

We have moved on as a society in so many ways. Medicine is now science based, not superstition and folk remedies. We don't hang witches any more. We (increasingly) use evidence-based policymaking.

We need to double down on saying "no, that's wrong", and stop, as I said, a race to the bottom where all it needs is enough people to be wrong for us to abandon what is right.

This is not a question of opinions, or changing societal mores, it is a question of fact, and no amount of ignorance, none whatsoever, no matter how widespread, can be allowed to override facts.

 

[Jacob]

I believe it does.

We have moved on as a society in so many ways. Medicine is now science based, not superstition and folk remedies. We don't hang witches any more. We (increasingly) use evidence-based policymaking.

We need to double down on saying "no, that's wrong", and stop, as I said, a race to the bottom where all it needs is enough people to be wrong for us to abandon what is right.

This is not a question of opinions, or changing societal mores, it is a question of fact, and no amount of ignorance, none whatsoever, no matter how widespread, can be allowed to override facts.

The meaning, or usage, of a word is not fixed.
https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/

 

[morqthana]

The meaning, or usage, of a word is not a scientific fact.

It is now.

Those examples you cited date from a time when people were not widely literate, did not receive an education, did not have access to dictionaries.

Things are different now. We must therefore do things differently.

 

[artie]

https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=bridges
https://www.quora.com/What-countries-criminal-justice-systems-have-the-lowest-recidivism-rates
http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Deady_march2014.pdf

Is it your position that the better the prisoners are treated, the less likely they are to reoffend?

 

[morqthana]

There does seem to be a lot of evidence for that.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

It is now.

Those examples you cited date from a time when people were not widely literate, did not receive an education, did not have access to dictionaries.

Things are different now. We must therefore do things differently.

Words change their meaning all the time. English has an oddity where it is not unusual for words to take on the complete opposite of their original meaning, over a very short time frame. How weird is that? If I were 15, I might say "That's sick!", meaning outstanding, excellent, cool (as in hot), etc.

Here's a list of words that have changed: 20 words that once meant something very different

The good news: History tells us that we’ll be fine. Words have been changing meaning — sometimes radically — as long as there have been words and speakers to speak them. Here is just a small sampling of words you may not have realized didn’t always mean what they mean today.

1. Nice: This word used to mean “silly, foolish, simple.” Far from the compliment it is today!
2. Silly: Meanwhile, silly went in the opposite direction: in its earliest uses, it referred to things worthy or blessed; from there it came to refer to the weak and vulnerable, and more recently to those who are foolish.
3. Awful: Awful things used to be “worthy of awe” for a variety of reasons, which is how we get expressions like “the awful majesty of God.”
4. Fizzle: The verb fizzle once referred to the act of producing quiet flatulence (think “SBD”); American college slang flipped the word’s meaning to refer to failing at things.
5. Wench: A shortened form of the Old English word wenchel (which referred to children of either sex), the word wench used to mean “female child” before it came to be used to refer to female servants — and more pejoratively to wanton women.
6. Fathom: It can be hard to fathom how this verb moved from meaning “to encircle with one’s arms” to meaning “to understand after much thought.” Here’s the scoop: One’s outstretched arms can be used as a measurement (a fathom), and once you have fathoms, you can use a fathom line to measure the depth of water. Think metaphorically and fathoming becomes about getting to the bottom of things.
7. Clue: Centuries ago, a clue (or clew) was a ball of yarn. Think about threading your way through a maze and you’ll see how we got from yarn to key bits of evidence that help us solve things.
8. Myriad: If you had a myriad of things 600 years ago, it meant that you specifically had 10,000 of them — not just a lot.
9. Naughty: Long ago, if you were naughty, you had naught or nothing. Then it came to mean evil or immoral, and now you are just badly behaved.
10. Eerie: Before the word eerie described things that inspire fear, it used to describe people feeling fear — as in one could feel faint and eerie.
11. Spinster: As it sounds, spinsters used to be women who spun. It referred to a legal occupation before it came to mean “unmarried woman” — and often not in the most positive ways, as opposed to a bachelor …
12. Bachelor: A bachelor was a young knight before the word came to refer to someone who had achieved the lowest rank at a university — and it lives on in that meaning in today’s B.A. and B.S degrees. It’s been used for unmarried men since Chaucer’s day.
13. Flirt: Some 500 years ago, flirting was flicking something away or flicking open a fan or otherwise making a brisk or jerky motion. Now it involves playing with people’s emotions (sometimes it may feel like your heart is getting jerked around in the process).
14. Guy: This word is an eponym. It comes from the name of Guy Fawkes, who was part of a failed attempt to blow up Parliament in 1605. Folks used to burn his effigy, a “Guy Fawkes” or a “guy,” and from there it came to refer to a frightful figure. In the U.S., it has come to refer to men in general.
15. Hussy: Believe it or not, hussy comes from the word housewife (with several sound changes, clearly) and used to refer to the mistress of a household, not the disreputable woman it refers to today.
16. Egregious: It used to be possible for it to be a good thing to be egregious: it meant you were distinguished or eminent. But in the end, the negative meaning of the word won out, and now it means that someone or something is conspicuously bad — not conspicuously good.
17. Quell: Quelling something or someone used to mean killing it, not just subduing it.
18. Divest: 300 years ago, divesting could involve undressing as well as depriving others of their rights or possessions. It has only recently come to refer to selling off investments.
19. Senile: Senile used to refer simply to anything related to old age, so you could have senile maturity. Now it refers specifically to those suffering from senile dementia.
20. Meat: Have you ever wondered about the expression “meat and drink”? It comes from an older meaning of the word meat that refers to food in general — solid food of a variety of kinds (not just animal flesh), as opposed to drink.

English doesn't have any language police as other languages do (German and French spring to mind immediately) and this is a good thing. Language is just agreed-upon labels: if you want to change the meaning, or invent a new word to be utterly precise - you crack on. No one is going to tell you it is forbidden, but plenty of old people will complain about how standards have dropped and pronunciation has changed, and how it all used to be so much better "back in my day".

Things are different now. We must therefore do things differently.

Are we allowed to invent new words? "Intersectionality" is one that springs to mind as "scientific", and either completely new, or at least a clumsy reworking of an old word with a completely new meaning a. Another favourite from 20 years ago (or is it 30?) is "desertize", with a z: it used to mean "make into a desert", but now is something Americans do to a tank when winning hearts and minds by blowing up weddings.

 

[morqthana]

Of course we need new words.

What we do not need is a system where if enough people to say "this is a television"

they suddenly become right.

How do you deal with the destruction and loss which your regime creates? The great seething mass of ignorant fools has been redefining "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it has meant for 500 years, so what happens when you need to use the word to mean what it always has, rather than mean "metaphorically"? There was no need to pervert the meaning of "literally", as there already was a word which could have been used, so you've ended up destroying the meaning it had for no gain.

Your approach is one of anti-intellectual, uncultured vandalism.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

.
Your approach is one of anti-intellectual, uncultured vandalism.

The great thing is that, no matter what you think, believe, demand or require, the great unwashed masses will carry on doing what they have always done: creating their own culture.

To misquote The Fast Show: Aren't people brilliant!

 

[Droogs]

Of course we need new words.

What we do not need is a system where if enough people to say "this is a television"

View attachment 139243


they suddenly become right.

How do you deal with the destruction and loss which your regime creates? The great seething mass of ignorant fools has been redefining "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it has meant for 500 years, so what happens when you need to use the word to mean what it always has, rather than mean "metaphorically"? There was no need to pervert the meaning of "literally", as there already was a word which could have been used, so you've ended up destroying the meaning it had for no gain.

Your approach is one of anti-intellectual, uncultured vandalism.

I'm calling this thing a Stabrabbit

 

[rafezetter]

Apparently this has been happening a lot in the USA, so if this ever happens to anyone else, don't let the second courier in whatever form they pose, collect the parcel.

Advice in the USA is tell them you'll verify the information for yourself and close the door, if they persist in trying to reclaim the parcel, then take a photograph and contact the police.

 

[morqthana]

The great thing is that, no matter what you think, believe, demand or require, the great unwashed masses will carry on doing what they have always done: creating their own culture.

Indeed they will.

But I don't have to agree that a culture of ignorance destroying a culture of learning is a good thing.

 

[misterfish]

Apparently this has been happening a lot in the USA, so if this ever happens to anyone else, don't let the second courier in whatever form they pose, collect the parcel.

Advice in the USA is tell them you'll verify the information for yourself and close the door, if they persist in trying to reclaim the parcel, then take a photograph and contact the police.

That is exactly what I did.

The policeman (local PCSO) was brilliant. Sorted it out with DPD and arranged its return. Came back and showed me the photo on the Sussex police 'wanted' section of the police website.

Nothing further has happened since my original posting, but it reinforces my gut feeling that this was wrong.

The problem is that the second 'courier' was at the door almost as soon as the delivery had been made before I'd even looked at the package.
Jeff