[1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries
The three obvious answers are crime, perception of crime (even though crime is going down, perception of crime is going up) and perception of the subway (is it a transport method for everyone or just for poor people and low-lifes).
Going one level deeper, you arrive at the media, poorly-handled immigration and failure in law-enforcement as main sources.
The worst thing that happened to me was I got my finger bit by a rabbit at the zoo.
I’m more inclined to believe that most criminals don’t entirely lose their sense of shame.
Used electronics don't sell for much these days, especially the Switch which barely hits around 300 USD new. And then you have to find a fence, and potentially deal with serial numbers being tracked (especially when it comes to violent crime against children, even lethargic police spring into action).
Both for moral reasons, but also because the penalties are tougher.
(And not just the legal penalties. I would assume you also run a higher risk of a bystander rushing in and becoming hero. And of your prison mates later ganging up on you. People _love_ children, not just their own, and many would gladly give their lives for them.)
I'm not afraid of other adults kidnapping my child. But I am afraid of other adults running her over. The Scientologists have been successful in popularizing their doctrine of "children are adults in small bodies" and so people will blame my child and possibly me if someone speeds through and kills her.
Consumer motor vehicles nowadays can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. The guy behind this extreme-performance motor isn't Ken Block. It's a sleep-deprived mother checking her phone.
I doubt the part that our 400hp supra driving sleep deprived soccer mom is tear assing through the streets knows that.
> [1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries
Wait, are you calling the correct usage here historical despite it still being frequently used in contemporary times, and advocating that the incorrect usage should be normalized?
To an extent, but people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also.
> the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.
No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use, just not in areas you participate in. It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'.
Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.
> No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use
The last research I saw claimed otherwise.
> It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'
Nothing disingenuous; to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) is not active at least in general writing (it may still be used as a term of art in philosophy, but if so I don't think that changes anything). Certainly it's a minority use.
Sure.
> Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.
It's not a historical quirk, it's the valid and modern usage.
> The last research I saw claimed otherwise.
Then it was clearly insufficient. How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so?
Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.
> to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage
You keep coating your replies with this, but it's not older or historical, just correct.
> (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different)
No, it is absolutely the correct usage.
By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.
> is not active at least in general writing
Yes, it is, and often articles that use it correctly will call out incorrect usage.
> Certainly it's a minority use.
Maybe, but your usage is plain incorrect and is as bad as using irregardless.
I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers.
> Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.
And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior. So let's not stoop to psychoanalysing each other.
> By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.
I don't think "irregardless" is more easily understood than, or conveys a useful distinction from, "regardless". Indeed the opposite, it's more confusing as it sounds like it's a double negation that should mean regardful.
If you could find that same discussion or source, it would add a lot to the discussion. Change the tide of it, in fact.
> And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior.
Personal attacks like that are very much against the HN guidelines. My statement was not a personal attack, but a reasonable hypothesis as what I described is freuently observed behavior. Saying you were corrected and took issue is rather different from claiming I have never won and am entirely incapable of learning or improving. I consider this escalation an emotional response and thus an indicator, but I agree let's stop psychoanalyzing each other.
You should realize however, it's rather absurd to include a distraction in your comment to bait discussion on this point. I know you claimed your motivation was the opposite, but that's frankly hard to believe.
But, you want to say I'm incapable of learning and improving. OK. All I ask is that you support your claim that the correct use is actually the historical use and not in widespread usage.
> Indeed the opposite
Not the opposite, both are incorrect variations of a valid word/term.
To quote from a sibling comment of yours:
> a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless.
Exactly.
I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression.
> If you're not using the original meaning, where "beg" specifically is important as the verb, you could have said almost any variant instead, e.g., "raises the question", and not annoyed or confused anyone
I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand. And I don't believe I caused any actual confusion; no-one genuinely misunderstood my comment. The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.
Next time, just don't try to advocate for your personal view of language, and use a less contended term, as the parent said 'raises the question' would be fine.
> I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand.
Nope. Raises the question is far clearer and less ambiguous.
> The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.
Or people who care about misinformation being spread.
"Raises the question" is less familiar and marginally more difficult to understand for people who are actually good-faith trying.
If you disagree, I would ask you to provide a source to support your assertion.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Out of curiosity, how do you refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question?
Like that. But mostly I don't.
Since 1972, Americans' trust in each other has fallen by half[1]. Pew Research has been showing how trust in all forms has been plummeting for a long time[2]. Of course trust in Government nose-dived in the 60's and 70's. In 1976, the movie Network! satirized "The News" as a force of corrupt capitalist enterprise meant to sensationalize rather than inform.
But none of this is new. In the 1890s, William Randolph Hearst waged a "media war" of propaganda at an unprecedented scale, intended to both dominate an industry, and turn popular opinion. He coined the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" [3]. And well before then, newspapers have been used locally and nationally to push agendas, frighten, lie, exaggerate, and taunt the public into a submissive frenzy.
Today we have media juggernauts that wield a massive pulpit with brazenly political spin. They can lie, intimidate, insinuate, and generally bombard an already terrified public into believing just about anything. And the political fringe weaponizes it into not just political action, but also inspiring real violence and oppression at all levels of society. We allow it because it's good politics, it's good business, and, well, that whole freedom of speech thing.
But politics is a small part of the story. The media controls the narrative, and society is nothing but the accumulation of stories. Everything we consume is delivered to us through the media in one form or another, and all that accumulated payment funds the machine.
Society in America is big business. Most countries can't hold a candle to the control our media wields over our populace. Its tendrils seek out every eyeball and ear, pumping us full of fear and elation, followed by the next commercial break. Our culture is a media product. We wouldn't know what to do without it.
So, why do we fear our kids on the train, where other places don't? We're way better at packaging fear, and we're damn good consumers.
[1] https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/ [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-di... [3] https://pepperdine-graphic.com/opinion-if-it-bleeds-it-leads...