6 ms·

The loss of a photo journalist with integrity like Danish Siddiqui is an irreplaceable loss, merely because there really aren't (m)any left. While this situati

The loss of a photo journalist with integrity like Danish Siddiqui is an irreplaceable loss, merely because there really aren't (m)any left. While this situation in Afghanistan was fraught with danger from the start, his reporting in the Delhi riots and UP (a state in India)'s handling of Covid really changed the dynamics of the public intercourse, and also the urgency of the government. He undertook it at personal cost as a muslim. In this way, these photographs were as impactful as the napalm girl photo in My Lai, Vietnam. We like to think of our country as having a free press, but we have one that is completely suborned to a political ideology, etc? Where are the similar photos of the body of the elderly stacked in NJ/NY? Is there a similar level of threat to lives of these reporters? The lack of a properly functioning 4th estate does not bode well for our country.

codetrotter 5y ago
> public intercourse I think you typo’d your way into a different word than you meant here. What you meant to say was public discourse.
- psim1 5y ago
  intercourse | ˈin(t)ərˌkôrs | noun communication or dealings between individuals or groups: everyday social intercourse.
  - codetrotter 5y ago
    And yet if you Google public intercourse the whole first page is all about sex. (Safe search off, probably.) I maintain that public discourse is the pair of words to use.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      I maintain that you should consult a dictionary before telling someone what they should have said. Also, we all make mistakes; the thing is to own up rather than doubling down.
      - andrewzah 5y ago
        Just about no one uses “public intercourse” unless they’re referring to people having sex, in public. Just because a definition -technically- exists doesn’t mean it’s actually used very much, or is the main definition the word is used for. “Public discourse” is correct, at least for Standard American English. edit: I am not arguing that this definition doesn't exist. As a native speaker I'm saying that it is very rarely used, if ever. A correction to "public discourse", a statement that actually -is- used by native speakers with frequency, is perfectly reasonable. Communication isn't about being technically correct in order to win arguments.
        foolinaround 5y ago
        Where I grew up - public intercourse -- really meant what I meant, and no one in their right mind would equate it to sex in a public place. > As a native speaker I'm saying Wow, how presumptous! What does that even mean? Did you know that the language is spoken across so many continents? Are you American? British? Australian? Something else? Do you know the number of Indians who are 'native English speakers' in that English is their #1 go-to language to read/write/think in? (even though they know a few others? )
        leephillips 5y ago
        You are, of course, correct, and those objecting to your use of a word in accord with its primary definition are simply undereducated, and being childish. When I read your comment it came across as you intended, and I was not distracted by irrelevant associations. > Do you know the number of Indians who are 'native English speakers' Probably more than the population of the US.
        andrewzah 5y ago
        Languages are not static, dictionaries are not made of stone. A word's primary usage can definitely change. Many words are like this: "[to] retard" is one such example where the original definition has been superseded by another definition in general usage. One can walk around with a dictionary and a prescriptivist mindset and tell people their language is "wrong", or one can acknowledge that definitions and usages change over time. The only time I've ever encountered this usage of public intercourse is in older texts. Certainly no one my age would use that instead of "public discourse". And that has nothing to do with levels of education or "childishness". One can be highly educated and have a diverse vocabulary while acknowledging the fact that certain usages are more popular than other usages, and they can change over time. Languages are illogical and beautiful in that way.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      Of course that would be your result, it is the median use, after the elision "[sexual] intercourse". "Intercourse" is not "/sexual/ intercourse": it is just "intercourse". (This should just make it evident, really: if "intercourse" becomes "sexual" after the elision, it is because it is so /only/ after the elision.) This is speaking the language vs speaking a group's language. If a group bends the language towards some direction, it is that group's business. When someone uses language, you cannot assume they are speaking the language internal to a group. Do not, because some simply will not. Incidentally, one cannot even guess what kind of branching one's language may get in some region. And in fact, it is not justifiable that one should use the language of the interlocutor's culture, especially when this is unidentified, instead of just using language.
bcrosby95 5y ago
> Where are the similar photos of the body of the elderly stacked in NJ/NY? There were plenty of photos and videos of people wheeling bodies into giant big rigs in NYC. Sometimes using a fork lift. CNN even has articles as recent as May 2021 talking about how those trucks are still full of dead bodies. This is all just a search away. So I don't know where you got the idea that this stuff is being hidden due to political ideology.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  Did you miss the point? We are talking about 2 events during the pandemic. bodies in big rigs in NYC -- they were shown to highlight the need for social distancing, masking, induce a sense of panic etc among the public - something that the media and party was game to. the bodies in elderly homes - a political decision (there were alternatives to sending infected seniors back into these homes), and the media hid it, ostensibly to protect their masters. That is what I was referring to? I am wondering if you are even aware of these happening? I would say there was almost a blackout of these news during that time in the mainstream media.
  - pricecomstock 5y ago
    Do you think they actually physically piled up corpses in nursing homes? Do you think a nursing home would allow a photographer inside to take pictures of random individual dead bodies? Doesn't it seem likely that the piles of bodies outside in refrigerated trucks were way more photographable, and like the nursing home bodies were not all in one place, or were too identifiable as individuals? I'm sure there are photos of unidentifiable bodies being wheeled out of nursing homes. Here's one: https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/nj-nursing-home-coronavirus-deaths.html https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/...
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      > Do you think they actually physically piled up corpses in nursing homes? It's not my opinion; in one case in Northern NJ, they actually piled them up in some storage room (unrefridgerated of course) till one of the workers revealed it. They tried to get away with it. > Do you think a nursing home would allow a photographer inside to take pictures of random individual dead bodies? Do you think in each of these situations we are talking, these photo journalists (or anyone else) are invited to do these investigations? What I started off is even after the news came out of these homes, the media chose to hide it. You seem to give the media the benefit of doubt, I however accuse them of malice, only because of all the opportunities they had to cover this issue (for months on end). We can chose to disagree ( it boils down to our political biases actually ). Even after this incident being exposed, the leaders in these states did not make changes to their policies for months on end. It is so surprising to me why there was no outcry about this. Its interesting that you linked a aarp report about this, and not one from the media.

codetrotter 5y ago

> public intercourse I think you typo’d your way into a different word than you meant here. What you meant to say was public discourse.

psim1 5y ago
intercourse | ˈin(t)ərˌkôrs | noun communication or dealings between individuals or groups: everyday social intercourse.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  And yet if you Google public intercourse the whole first page is all about sex. (Safe search off, probably.) I maintain that public discourse is the pair of words to use.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    I maintain that you should consult a dictionary before telling someone what they should have said. Also, we all make mistakes; the thing is to own up rather than doubling down.
    - andrewzah 5y ago
      Just about no one uses “public intercourse” unless they’re referring to people having sex, in public. Just because a definition -technically- exists doesn’t mean it’s actually used very much, or is the main definition the word is used for. “Public discourse” is correct, at least for Standard American English. edit: I am not arguing that this definition doesn't exist. As a native speaker I'm saying that it is very rarely used, if ever. A correction to "public discourse", a statement that actually -is- used by native speakers with frequency, is perfectly reasonable. Communication isn't about being technically correct in order to win arguments.
      - foolinaround 5y ago
        Where I grew up - public intercourse -- really meant what I meant, and no one in their right mind would equate it to sex in a public place. > As a native speaker I'm saying Wow, how presumptous! What does that even mean? Did you know that the language is spoken across so many continents? Are you American? British? Australian? Something else? Do you know the number of Indians who are 'native English speakers' in that English is their #1 go-to language to read/write/think in? (even though they know a few others? )
        leephillips 5y ago
        You are, of course, correct, and those objecting to your use of a word in accord with its primary definition are simply undereducated, and being childish. When I read your comment it came across as you intended, and I was not distracted by irrelevant associations. > Do you know the number of Indians who are 'native English speakers' Probably more than the population of the US.
        andrewzah 5y ago
        Languages are not static, dictionaries are not made of stone. A word's primary usage can definitely change. Many words are like this: "[to] retard" is one such example where the original definition has been superseded by another definition in general usage. One can walk around with a dictionary and a prescriptivist mindset and tell people their language is "wrong", or one can acknowledge that definitions and usages change over time. The only time I've ever encountered this usage of public intercourse is in older texts. Certainly no one my age would use that instead of "public discourse". And that has nothing to do with levels of education or "childishness". One can be highly educated and have a diverse vocabulary while acknowledging the fact that certain usages are more popular than other usages, and they can change over time. Languages are illogical and beautiful in that way.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Of course that would be your result, it is the median use, after the elision "[sexual] intercourse". "Intercourse" is not "/sexual/ intercourse": it is just "intercourse". (This should just make it evident, really: if "intercourse" becomes "sexual" after the elision, it is because it is so /only/ after the elision.) This is speaking the language vs speaking a group's language. If a group bends the language towards some direction, it is that group's business. When someone uses language, you cannot assume they are speaking the language internal to a group. Do not, because some simply will not. Incidentally, one cannot even guess what kind of branching one's language may get in some region. And in fact, it is not justifiable that one should use the language of the interlocutor's culture, especially when this is unidentified, instead of just using language.

bcrosby95 5y ago

> Where are the similar photos of the body of the elderly stacked in NJ/NY? There were plenty of photos and videos of people wheeling bodies into giant big rigs in NYC. Sometimes using a fork lift. CNN even has articles as recent as May 2021 talking about how those trucks are still full of dead bodies. This is all just a search away. So I don't know where you got the idea that this stuff is being hidden due to political ideology.

foolinaround 5y ago
Did you miss the point? We are talking about 2 events during the pandemic. bodies in big rigs in NYC -- they were shown to highlight the need for social distancing, masking, induce a sense of panic etc among the public - something that the media and party was game to. the bodies in elderly homes - a political decision (there were alternatives to sending infected seniors back into these homes), and the media hid it, ostensibly to protect their masters. That is what I was referring to? I am wondering if you are even aware of these happening? I would say there was almost a blackout of these news during that time in the mainstream media.
- pricecomstock 5y ago
  Do you think they actually physically piled up corpses in nursing homes? Do you think a nursing home would allow a photographer inside to take pictures of random individual dead bodies? Doesn't it seem likely that the piles of bodies outside in refrigerated trucks were way more photographable, and like the nursing home bodies were not all in one place, or were too identifiable as individuals? I'm sure there are photos of unidentifiable bodies being wheeled out of nursing homes. Here's one: https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/nj-nursing-home-coronavirus-deaths.html https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/...
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    > Do you think they actually physically piled up corpses in nursing homes? It's not my opinion; in one case in Northern NJ, they actually piled them up in some storage room (unrefridgerated of course) till one of the workers revealed it. They tried to get away with it. > Do you think a nursing home would allow a photographer inside to take pictures of random individual dead bodies? Do you think in each of these situations we are talking, these photo journalists (or anyone else) are invited to do these investigations? What I started off is even after the news came out of these homes, the media chose to hide it. You seem to give the media the benefit of doubt, I however accuse them of malice, only because of all the opportunities they had to cover this issue (for months on end). We can chose to disagree ( it boils down to our political biases actually ). Even after this incident being exposed, the leaders in these states did not make changes to their policies for months on end. It is so surprising to me why there was no outcry about this. Its interesting that you linked a aarp report about this, and not one from the media.