5 ms·

One thing I love about reading the Economist is the non-American perspective it gives me on American news. In the US we call this "corporeal punishment" or "spa

One thing I love about reading the Economist is the non-American perspective it gives me on American news. In the US we call this "corporeal punishment" or "spanking" and pretend like it's rare, no big deal, and maybe necessary. The Economist doesn't mince words referring to it as "hit", "beat", "strike", "hurt", and finally "criminal assault".

MoSattler 4y ago
I guess it's the European perspective, where most countries have outlawed any c̵o̵r̵p̵o̵r̵e̵a̵l̵ corporal punishment.
- afandian 4y ago
  Asking out of pure curiosity, as you repeated that spelling. In the UK we say “corporal” not “corporeal”. Is the latter standard in US English?
  - jackson1442 4y ago
    Corporal is standard in the US as well, may be confusing the terms because "corporeal" does (loosely) mean "of the flesh" as well.
  - czx4f4bd 4y ago
    It's not. "Corporal punishment" is the correct spelling in the US, too.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Its corporal punishment in the US too. Corporeal means having a physical body.
  - enkid 4y ago
    Edit: Language is a construct set by society. Merriam Webster states corporal punishment is the correct term, but corporeal is the word that means "of the body." Corporal used to mean of the body but is not used that way outside the specific term corporal punishment. Ignore the below. Corporal is a rank in the military. Corporeal (pronounced something like core pore ree al) is having to do with a person's body, but isn't used in often outside of the phrase "corporeal punishment."
    - czx4f4bd 4y ago
      "Corporeal punishment" is not a phrase. It's "corporal punishment". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment
    - afandian 4y ago
      Corporal means “of the body” too. Though, as siblings comments have noted, in a less theological framing.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      > Edit: [linguistic relativism] Their, they're and there are commonly misused, but that doesn't change what each means.
      - mindcrime 4y ago
        but that doesn't change what each means. It does if it happens often enough, and if people accept it as such. See: "literally now literally means figuratively" and other such apparent madness. Of course you, or I, or anyone else can refuse to accept such changes, but at the end of the day we really have nothing firmer to stand on than "I don't like it."
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        "I left my bag over they're" is simply wrong. Bury your [you're??] head in the sand if you want, it's still wrong.
        amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        Yeah, but that's just spelling, which in English is pretty fucked.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        Both there/they're and corporal/corporeal seem to be [near] homophone swaps. It's an easy enough mistake to make, but still a mistake.
  - pcdevils 4y ago
    US news and dictionaries say corporal like the UK. Corporeal makes it sound like beating the physical being of the spirit. Which, depending on your views may seem right, whilst being grammatically incorrect.
  - gpm 4y ago
    Corporeal is an entirely different word, roughly meaning "with some form of body that can be physically touched". A ghost isn't corporeal, a human is. An ebook isn't corporeal, an ebook-reader is. With auto-complete/spellcheck and neither word being used often, it's not surprising that someone would mix the two up.
  - NelsonMinar 4y ago
    I'm guilty of first using the phrase "corporeal punishment" here and I was just typing fast and not thinking. Even on second thought I'm not sure which would be "correct", they both seem right to me. (I grew up in Texas, FWIW.) I gather "corporal punishment" is the standard usage though, here's a good little writeup: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/corporal-and-corporeal-which-one-hurts-more https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/corporal-and-c...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- madaxe_again 4y ago
  They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did not ban it in 1986, as my school experience attests - I was caned frequently, and a caning was, honestly, preferable to the alternatives which usually involved gravel. It was banned in state funded schools in 1986. Public (i.e. private) schools, 1999. I suppose at least it gave parents the choice as to whether or not they’d like their kids to be beaten, and at least at school they didn’t use the buckle end of a belt, just a meter rule.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did not ban it in 1986, [...] > It was banned in state funded schools in 1986. The article refers to “public schools” in the American sense (i.e., state funded schools)—and would be wrong otherwise, since sone of the states that ban it in public school do not in private schools. So, when it talks aboit banning it in England, it refers to the same thing: corporal punishment in state-funded schools. So the article is correct.
    - madaxe_again 4y ago
      Ah, fair enough. I suppose it’s ok to beat those kids, as they’re privileged.
- FanaHOVA 4y ago
  In school maybe, but hitting your child is much more frowned upon in the US than in Italy for example
saghm 4y ago
> In the US we call this "corporeal punishment" or "spanking" and pretend like it's rare, no big deal, and maybe necessary. To be clear, not everyone in the US feels this way. I'm shocked and saddened that it's legal in 19 states, and I would categorically not vote for anyone who I knew would support legalizing it in the others. The sad reality is that the political system in the US can sometimes make it extremely difficult to enact and enforce popular measures.
- tptacek 4y ago
  If you're in one of those 19 states, you ban corporal punishment in your municipality or in its school system, which is what happens in practice.
vidarh 4y ago
In the UK, where the Economist is published, parents are still allowed to physically abuse their kids (within certain limits; it must be "reasonable" punishment), so unfortunately it's not all that universally a non-American perspective.
- sodapopcan 4y ago
  It sounds like OP was just talking about the more direct language being used.
- nmadden 4y ago
  It’s still legal in England and Northern Ireland, but smacking children is banned in Scotland and Wales.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Thanks for the correction. As usual England is the most regressive part of the union...

MoSattler 4y ago

I guess it's the European perspective, where most countries have outlawed any c̵o̵r̵p̵o̵r̵e̵a̵l̵ corporal punishment.

afandian 4y ago
Asking out of pure curiosity, as you repeated that spelling. In the UK we say “corporal” not “corporeal”. Is the latter standard in US English?
- jackson1442 4y ago
  Corporal is standard in the US as well, may be confusing the terms because "corporeal" does (loosely) mean "of the flesh" as well.
- czx4f4bd 4y ago
  It's not. "Corporal punishment" is the correct spelling in the US, too.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Its corporal punishment in the US too. Corporeal means having a physical body.
- enkid 4y ago
  Edit: Language is a construct set by society. Merriam Webster states corporal punishment is the correct term, but corporeal is the word that means "of the body." Corporal used to mean of the body but is not used that way outside the specific term corporal punishment. Ignore the below. Corporal is a rank in the military. Corporeal (pronounced something like core pore ree al) is having to do with a person's body, but isn't used in often outside of the phrase "corporeal punishment."
  - czx4f4bd 4y ago
    "Corporeal punishment" is not a phrase. It's "corporal punishment". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment
  - afandian 4y ago
    Corporal means “of the body” too. Though, as siblings comments have noted, in a less theological framing.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > Edit: [linguistic relativism] Their, they're and there are commonly misused, but that doesn't change what each means.
    - mindcrime 4y ago
      but that doesn't change what each means. It does if it happens often enough, and if people accept it as such. See: "literally now literally means figuratively" and other such apparent madness. Of course you, or I, or anyone else can refuse to accept such changes, but at the end of the day we really have nothing firmer to stand on than "I don't like it."
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        "I left my bag over they're" is simply wrong. Bury your [you're??] head in the sand if you want, it's still wrong.
        amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        Yeah, but that's just spelling, which in English is pretty fucked.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        Both there/they're and corporal/corporeal seem to be [near] homophone swaps. It's an easy enough mistake to make, but still a mistake.
- pcdevils 4y ago
  US news and dictionaries say corporal like the UK. Corporeal makes it sound like beating the physical being of the spirit. Which, depending on your views may seem right, whilst being grammatically incorrect.
- gpm 4y ago
  Corporeal is an entirely different word, roughly meaning "with some form of body that can be physically touched". A ghost isn't corporeal, a human is. An ebook isn't corporeal, an ebook-reader is. With auto-complete/spellcheck and neither word being used often, it's not surprising that someone would mix the two up.
- NelsonMinar 4y ago
  I'm guilty of first using the phrase "corporeal punishment" here and I was just typing fast and not thinking. Even on second thought I'm not sure which would be "correct", they both seem right to me. (I grew up in Texas, FWIW.) I gather "corporal punishment" is the standard usage though, here's a good little writeup: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/corporal-and-corporeal-which-one-hurts-more https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/corporal-and-c...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
madaxe_again 4y ago
They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did not ban it in 1986, as my school experience attests - I was caned frequently, and a caning was, honestly, preferable to the alternatives which usually involved gravel. It was banned in state funded schools in 1986. Public (i.e. private) schools, 1999. I suppose at least it gave parents the choice as to whether or not they’d like their kids to be beaten, and at least at school they didn’t use the buckle end of a belt, just a meter rule.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > They have, although the article gets it wrong - the U.K. did not ban it in 1986, [...] > It was banned in state funded schools in 1986. The article refers to “public schools” in the American sense (i.e., state funded schools)—and would be wrong otherwise, since sone of the states that ban it in public school do not in private schools. So, when it talks aboit banning it in England, it refers to the same thing: corporal punishment in state-funded schools. So the article is correct.
  - madaxe_again 4y ago
    Ah, fair enough. I suppose it’s ok to beat those kids, as they’re privileged.
FanaHOVA 4y ago
In school maybe, but hitting your child is much more frowned upon in the US than in Italy for example

saghm 4y ago

> In the US we call this "corporeal punishment" or "spanking" and pretend like it's rare, no big deal, and maybe necessary. To be clear, not everyone in the US feels this way. I'm shocked and saddened that it's legal in 19 states, and I would categorically not vote for anyone who I knew would support legalizing it in the others. The sad reality is that the political system in the US can sometimes make it extremely difficult to enact and enforce popular measures.

tptacek 4y ago
If you're in one of those 19 states, you ban corporal punishment in your municipality or in its school system, which is what happens in practice.

vidarh 4y ago

In the UK, where the Economist is published, parents are still allowed to physically abuse their kids (within certain limits; it must be "reasonable" punishment), so unfortunately it's not all that universally a non-American perspective.

sodapopcan 4y ago
It sounds like OP was just talking about the more direct language being used.
nmadden 4y ago
It’s still legal in England and Northern Ireland, but smacking children is banned in Scotland and Wales.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Thanks for the correction. As usual England is the most regressive part of the union...