Also in the news

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Interesting. Have you watched any of the trial coverage so far? 

On the subject of January 6th, I always get a bit suspicious when somebody (not saying you, I mean in general) insists that a particular word be used to describe something. The word "insurrection" has a lot of clout. Prior to January 6th, I only ever heard it applied to organised military coups (for example the failed coup in Turkey in 2016), rebellions of vassal states or colonies against the superior state or empire (for example the Irish uprising of 1798), or significant and usually rather bloody peasant revolts in medieval Europe (like the ones on this list). What I saw on January 6th doesn't seem to me to belong in the same category as those sorts of events. It doesn't come anywhere near in terms of scale, significance, overall political aims, levels of violence, the extent of organisation, actual danger to the institution(s) involved etc. I don't think it's an accident that, historically, this word that some insist on using has been considered tantamount to treason and worthy of capital punishment. Language can be a very powerful tool and I think we should be careful with it.

Thanks for the response.

 

Yep, I've seen some of the trial footage, including Rittenhouse breaking down on the stand. It doesn't change my original thoughts on the matter and I'm not sure why it would.

 

With respect to Jan 6th, Carl pretty much said what I wanted to say, and I'll just add that given what was said by some of the people who entered that building via social media beforehand, including looking to hang Mike Pence among others (a simple Google search would confirm this), I don't think "insurrection" is too strong a word to use in terms of intent even if the execution of it wasn't as effective as events in the past, thanks in part to the quick thinking of one Capitol officer.

 

4 hours ago, I am Rod Hull said:

Straw man 

Please do elaborate. If this is referring to January 6th, then as per above the intent of at least some who went into the Capitol was very clear.

 

I know that they were doing it for Trump who appears to do no wrong in your eyes, but I'm thinking looking to execute elected members of Congress for him is taking it a bit far.

Edited 12 November 2021 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

All of this being said, if Rittenhouse does get acquitted I can imagine it won't exactly be the gravy boat for him afterwards.

 

Brock Turner is stuck in some dead-end job and George Zimmerman was chased out of parking lots he was trying to sleep in, for instance.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

14 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Then I think it's your own personal beliefs causing the confusion because that's not what the word means, just what it means to you.

insurrection

/ˌɪnsəˈrɛkʃ(ə)n/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government

Very interesting direction to go in actually. Firstly, this is an Argument from Definition. That doesn't always constitute a fallacy but I believe here it is, because the entry you quoted does not refer to context or common usage, so it cannot be used to rebut my claim that it tended to be used in a particular way. Dictionary definitions generally don't contain the complete sociolinguistic profile of a word and may not fully capture its character and weight. This is why linguists like Chomsky and Hymes wrote so much about the idea of Competence in linguistics. For example, Hymes regarded Sociolinguistic Competence as the ability to intuit and reproduce "appropriateness... " or "...the mastery of the cultural rules of use and rules of discourse that are at play". This isn't derived from a dictionary, it is absorbed (usually over significant periods of time) by speakers/hearers of the language. It's why non-native speakers may progress to a very good level in the target language, developing a high degree of grammatical competence, but still fail to judge appropriateness correctly. It can't be "looked up" in the way you suggest. 

 

So I don't agree that it's simply my "personal belief", as you describe it, rather it's the sum total of my participation in and interaction with the language. All of us do this all the time. If we start talking about our jobs, for example, and I start referring to the "remuneration" I get instead of the "wages" or "salary", saying things like "yeah I like my job but the remuneration isn't great", it's going to feel weird even though it's grammatically fine. Would it matter if I cited the dictionary definition of "remuneration" as "money paid for work or a service"? Of course not, it's inappropriate in everyday speech to use that word, even though the dictionary definition on its own might imply that I can use it. Another good example of this is in Christmas Special of the Office where Brent says he travels a lot, claiming that his trips to Hull and back technically constitute travelling because he has to go there rather than Hull coming to him down the motorway in a car. The fact that Brent's trips to Hull might satisfy the definition "go from one place to another, typically over a distance of some length" (Reading and Hull are undoubtedly two different places "some distance" apart), it's still not appropriate to describe that as "travel" because of the character of that word in common usage, particularly in the context of describing your interests and hobbies.

 

I cited some sources which used "insurrection" in the way I remember it being used before January 6th. I am genuinely very interested in seeing similar examples which support your position that "insurrection" has a more general application than what I initially thought.

 

 

 

Edited 12 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Very interesting direction to go in actually. Firstly, this is an Argument from Definition. That doesn't always constitute a fallacy but I believe here it is, because the entry you quoted does not refer to context or common usage, so it cannot be used to rebut my claim that it tended to be used in a particular way. Dictionary definitions generally don't contain the complete sociolinguistic profile of a word and may not fully capture its character and weight. This is why linguists like Chomsky and Hymes wrote so much about the idea of Competence in linguistics. For example, Hymes regarded Sociolinguistic Competence as the ability to intuit and reproduce "appropriateness... " or "...the mastery of the cultural rules of use and rules of discourse that are at play". This isn't derived from a dictionary, it is absorbed (usually over significant periods of time) by speakers/hearers of the language. It's why non-native speakers may progress to a very good level in the target language, developing a high degree of grammatical competence, but still fail to judge appropriateness correctly. It can't be "looked up" in the way you suggest. 

 

So I don't agree that it's simply my "personal belief", as you describe it, rather it's the sum total of my participation in and interaction with the language. All of us do this all the time. If we start talking about our jobs, for example, and I start referring to the "remuneration" I get instead of the "wages" or "salary", saying things like "yeah I like my job but the remuneration isn't great", it's going to feel weird even though it's grammatically fine. Would it matter if I cited the dictionary definition of "remuneration" as "money paid for work or a service"? Of course not, it's inappropriate in everyday speech to use that word, even though the dictionary definition on its own might imply that I can use it. Another good example of this is in Christmas Special of the Office where Brent says he travels a lot, claiming that his trips to Hull and back technically constitute travelling because he has to go there rather than Hull coming to him down the motorway in a car. The fact that Brent's trips to Hull might satisfy the definition "go from one place to another, typically over a distance of some length" (Reading and Hull are undoubtedly two different places "some distance" apart), it's still not appropriate to describe that as "travel" because of the character of that word in common usage, particularly in the context of describing your interests and hobbies.

 

I cited some sources which used "insurrection" in the way I remember it being used before January 6th. I am genuinely very interested in seeing similar examples which support your position that "insurrection" has a more general application than what I initially thought.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I enjoy semantics so I'm glad someone else does too.

 

Let's go for another angle here, then; if the events of that day were not an insurrection and/or an attempt to disrupt or overthrow the government of the US, how would they be defined?

[Carl the Llama]

24 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Very interesting direction to go in actually. Firstly, this is an Argument from Definition. That doesn't always constitute a fallacy but I believe here it is, because the entry you quoted does not refer to context or common usage, so it cannot be used to rebut my claim that it tended to be used in a particular way. Dictionary definitions generally don't contain the complete sociolinguistic profile of a word and may not fully capture its character and weight. This is why linguists like Chomsky and Hymes wrote so much about the idea of Competence in linguistics. For example, Hymes regarded Sociolinguistic Competence as the ability to intuit and reproduce "appropriateness... " or "...the mastery of the cultural rules of use and rules of discourse that are at play". This isn't derived from a dictionary, it is absorbed (usually over significant periods of time) by speakers/hearers of the language. It's why non-native speakers may progress to a very good level in the target language, developing a high degree of grammatical competence, but still fail to judge appropriateness correctly.

A very long winded way of saying "but I feel x is true so it is, because I just said so".

26 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

It can't be "looked up" in the way you suggest. 

And this is your safety net, "what I argue can't be researched, you just have to know it", very theological.  It also means there's not much point engaging someone like you because there's never going to be any way to get you to accept contradictory evidence like the actual definition of words vs your straw man definition of them.  And you tell me I'm relying on logical fallacies...

29 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

So I don't agree that it's simply my "personal belief", as you describe it, rather it's the sum total of my participation in and interaction with the language. All of us do this all the time. If we start talking about our jobs, for example, and I start referring to the "remuneration" I get instead of the "wages" or "salary", saying things like "yeah I like my job but the remuneration isn't great", it's going to feel weird even though it's grammatically fine. Would it matter if I cited the dictionary definition of "remuneration" as "money paid for work or a service"? Of course not, it's inappropriate in everyday speech to use that word, even though the dictionary definition on its own might imply that I can use it. Another good example of this is in Christmas Special of the Office where Brent says he travels a lot, claiming that his trips to Hull and back technically constitute travelling because he has to go there rather than Hull coming to him down the motorway in a car. The fact that Brent's trips to Hull might satisfy the definition "go from one place to another, typically over a distance of some length" (Reading and Hull are undoubtedly two different places "some distance" apart), it's still not appropriate to describe that as "travel" because of the character of that word in common usage, particularly in the context of describing your interests and hobbies.

It's fine to say remuneration, it's not the most commonly used word I'll grant you that, and maybe you think it sounds a bit posh, but your prejudices against it shouldn't and don't dictate whether other people can use it.  The Office example you bring up is a pun, a play on the word's multiple valid uses, it works because both uses are legitimate in their proper context.

36 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I cited some sources which used "insurrection" in the way I remember it being used before January 6th. I am genuinely very interested in seeing similar examples which support your position that "insurrection" has a more general application than what I initially thought.

No... you really didn't.  You're not going to like my point here because it relies on actual definitions of words, but what you did was give anecdotal evidence in keeping with your reliance on the "well I believe it to be true" defence, not cited examples. The burden still lies on you to show that insurrection can't be validly applied to the one that failed on Jan 6th.

cite

/sʌɪt/

Learn to pronounce

 

verb

past tense: cited; past participle: cited

1. 1.

   refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work

[leicsmac]

An addendum to the above discussion:

 

Of course definitions of words and scientific laws come to that are all subjective because they are the direct invention of the human mind and agreed upon by the perception of a sufficient number of people.

 

However,  these definitions and laws exist for a reason in that if we don't use them, then everything becomes a giant talking shop and nothing actually gets done, which isn't a good survival strategy.

[String fellow]

The UK government recently paid the French government £54m to try to prevent people crossing the Channel in small boats. But over 1000 people crossed the Channel yesterday in small boats, a record for a single day, and it's not even summer. And as the people trafficers get better organised and as countries such as Belarus appear to be encouraging mass migrations into Western Europe from the Middle East and Asia, the numbers are likely to continue to rise, with no obvious way to stem the flow without contravening international law. Does anyone share my disquiet that the situation appears to be slowly getting out of control, despite all the rhetoric from Priti Patel?  

[Buce]

17 minutes ago, String fellow said:

The UK government recently paid the French government £54m to try to prevent people crossing the Channel in small boats. But over 1000 people crossed the Channel yesterday in small boats, a record for a single day, and it's not even summer. And as the people trafficers get better organised and as countries such as Belarus appear to be encouraging mass migrations into Western Europe from the Middle East and Asia, the numbers are likely to continue to rise, with no obvious way to stem the flow without contravening international law. Does anyone share my disquiet that the situation appears to be slowly getting out of control, despite all the rhetoric from Priti Patel?  

 

This is nothing compared to what will happen if we don't get the climate under control.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

This is nothing compared to what will happen if we don't get the climate under control.

I'm rather amazed that more folks haven't cottoned on to how big a refugee crisis hundreds of millions of people lacking food and potable water would be.

 

Of course, it's possible they have considered it and are prepared to engage in the rather simple solution of pulling up the drawbridge and leaving them to their fate.

[yorkie1999]

42 minutes ago, String fellow said:

The UK government recently paid the French government £54m to try to prevent people crossing the Channel in small boats. But over 1000 people crossed the Channel yesterday in small boats, a record for a single day, and it's not even summer. And as the people trafficers get better organised and as countries such as Belarus appear to be encouraging mass migrations into Western Europe from the Middle East and Asia, the numbers are likely to continue to rise, with no obvious way to stem the flow without contravening international law. Does anyone share my disquiet that the situation appears to be slowly getting out of control, despite all the rhetoric from Priti Patel?  

Solves the Calais problem from a French point of view though.

[Innovindil]

46 minutes ago, String fellow said:

The UK government recently paid the French government £54m to try to prevent people crossing the Channel in small boats. But over 1000 people crossed the Channel yesterday in small boats, a record for a single day, and it's not even summer. And as the people trafficers get better organised and as countries such as Belarus appear to be encouraging mass migrations into Western Europe from the Middle East and Asia, the numbers are likely to continue to rise, with no obvious way to stem the flow without contravening international law. Does anyone share my disquiet that the situation appears to be slowly getting out of control, despite all the rhetoric from Priti Patel?  

Does make me smh a bit when we see Poland post thousands of troops along their border to keep thousands of refugees in freezing temperatures with full support of the EU but us returning boats to France is seen as inhumane.

 

Strange times we're living in.

[jgtuk]

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Does make me smh a bit when we see Poland post thousands of troops along their border to keep thousands of refugees in freezing temperatures with full support of the EU but us returning boats to France is seen as inhumane.

 

Strange times we're living in.

Two wrongs etc.

[Innovindil]

Just now, jgtuk said:

Two wrongs etc.

Whats good for the goose etc.

[jgtuk]

55 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Whats good for the goose etc.

Not sure what your point is.

I believe all of the actions taken against the immigrants are inhumane.

Poland placing troops on the border is more about Belarus/Russia than immigration.

I don't want to get into a debate about it as it sickens me somewhat that we treat people this way.

[String fellow]

40 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

Not sure what your point is.

I believe all of the actions taken against the immigrants are inhumane.

Poland placing troops on the border is more about Belarus/Russia than immigration.

I don't want to get into a debate about it as it sickens me somewhat that we treat people this way.

Don't you think that Mr Lukashenko is primarily responsible for the people stuck on the border with Poland? He invited them into his freezing country. Isn't he as much a people-trafficer as the people organising small boats crossing the Channel, except that his motives are politcal and economic rather than purely financial?    

[Innovindil]

49 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

Not sure what your point is.

I believe all of the actions taken against the immigrants are inhumane.

Poland placing troops on the border is more about Belarus/Russia than immigration.

I don't want to get into a debate about it as it sickens me somewhat that we treat people this way.

What? They literally sent them to build a wire fence to keep migrants out.  

 

Poland, which has been criticised for pushing back migrants and refugees at its border, has responded to the large number of people arriving there by building a razor-wire fence.

 

 

 

[jgtuk]

10 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Don't you think that Mr Lukashenko is primarily responsible for the people stuck on the border with Poland? He invited them into his freezing country. Isn't he as much a people-trafficer as the people organising small boats crossing the Channel, except that his motives are politcal and economic rather than purely financial?    

Yes. If you actually read what I said - I believe all of the actions taken against the immigrants are inhumane.

I'm certainly not cheering on the EU or UK for their behavior though. These migrants are pawns in a horrible, detestable game.

As I said, I don't want to get into a debate so with respect, I'm out.

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What? They literally sent them to build a wire fence to keep migrants out.  

 

Poland, which has been criticised for pushing back migrants and refugees at its border, has responded to the large number of people arriving there by building a razor-wire fence.

 

 

 

They have, but the entire situation has been engineered by Belarus which is a puppet state of Russia and orchestrated by the Kremlin. Iraqi Kurds have been enticed into the country then forced to descend on the border essentially having been given passage into and through Belarus and in most cases flown in to Minsk. This is a deliberate and cynical tactic by Russia to place pressure on the EU by inviting in and subsequently funnelling migrants through the country to mass on the Polish and Lithuanian border. Once there, the Belarusian border authorities prevent them from returning to Minsk. These people are pawns lured into a political game started by Belarus with Russian backing. Those that try to remain in Minsk have been beaten by Belarus police officers and soldiers. 

[jgtuk]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What? They literally sent them to build a wire fence to keep migrants out.  

 

Poland, which has been criticised for pushing back migrants and refugees at its border, has responded to the large number of people arriving there by building a razor-wire fence.

 

 

 

So, just to be clear, I think the actions are reprehensible.

[jgtuk]

Just now, Line-X said:

They have, but the entire situation has been engineered by Belarus which is a puppet state of Russia and orchestrated by the Kremlin. Iraqi Kurds have been enticed into the country then forced to descend on the border essentially having been given passage into and through Belarus and in most cases flown in to Minsk. This is a deliberate and cynical tactic by Russia to place pressure on the EU by inviting in and subsequently funnelling migrants through the country to mass on the Polish and Lithuanian border. Once there, the Belarusian border authorities prevent them from returning to Minsk. These people are pawns lured into a political game started by Belarus with Russian backing. Those that try to remain in Minsk have been beaten by Belarus police officers and soldiers. 

Just this.

All of it.

[Buce]

 

Oh, the irony...

 

Brexit has made it easier for small boat crossings to reach UK, refugees say:

Refugees living in northern France say Brexit has made it easier for them to reach the UK in small boats, as it emerged that record numbers of people crossed the Channel in one day.

Despite the worsening weather conditions and the UK government’s attempts to deter them, 1,185 people made the crossing on Thursday, according to the Home Office.

 

Refugees who have fled a variety of conflict zones including Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Eritrea told the Guardian they believed the fact the UK was no longer part of the EU made it more appealing to risk the dangerous crossings because they could no longer be sent back to other European countries under EU legislation.

In October 2020 Boris Johnson said Brexit would enable Britain to take back “full control of our money, our borders and our laws”.

Nevertheless, while the overall number of people fleeing conflict and claiming asylum in the UK has fallen to 31,115 in the last 12 months, the number crossing from France to the UK in small boats has risen sharply since the UK parted company from the EU.

Previously, when the UK was part of the EU, under a mechanism known as Dublin, the UK could ask other EU countries to take back people they could prove had passed through safe European countries before reaching the UK.

The UK could make “take charge” requests and officials were often able to prove that asylum seekers had passed through other countries thanks to the Eurodac fingerprint database. But since Brexit, the UK no longer has access to that database so it is harder to prove definitively which other European countries small boat arrivals to the UK have previously passed through.

The UK has not so far struck any bilateral agreements with other EU countries to enable them to replicate the Dublin arrangement. Instead they have labelled many claims where they suspect people have passed through other European countries before reaching the UK as “inadmissible”.

In practice this means many asylum seekers are languishing in the system for extended periods but are not being sent to other countries.

Even before the UK left the EU, only a few hundred people were sent to other European countries in 2020.

The Guardian recently interviewed dozens of asylum seekers in northern France. Many were malnourished, bedraggled and in a desperate state and had fled a variety of conflict zones. Some had travelled through Libya where they had been detained and trafficked.

One 19-year-old man from Sudan who is currently in Calais, said: “We believe we will not be safe unless we can reach the UK. Here the French police beat us and evict us every day from the places where we are sleeping outside. It brings back bad memories from Libya where I was locked up and beaten many times by traffickers. Because of Brexit I believe that once I reach the UK I will be safe at last. No Dublin, no fingerprints any more.”

He said he had no money to pay smugglers and would try to find a way to cross with a small group of friends in an abandoned kayak. “Every night we go to the beach to look for small boats that have been abandoned and we will try to cross that way.”

One Kurdish man who gave his name as Navid, and is sleeping in a tent in Dunkirk, said his family had made an arrangement with smugglers to pay for him to cross in a small boat.

“Everyone here is saying to me that because of Brexit it is much easier to find safety in the UK,” he said. “I hope I will manage to cross without losing my life and find a safe future in the UK.”

[Bellend Sebastian]

@Buce I know what Brexit I voted for. This is exactly what I wanted to happen

 

 

 

 

 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

@Buce I know what Brexit I voted for. This is exactly what I wanted to happen

 

 

 Sorry if I'm being thick; are you saying you voted for Brexit in order to facilitate immigration?

[MPH]

On 11/11/2021 at 12:50, MarshallForEngland said:

No I don't think I'm missing your point. I am saying that even if that is true, it doesn't make it an "insurrection" for the reasons I outlined above. Peasant revolts in the medieval period, colonised states breaking away from the empire, very heavily armed militaries trying to overthrow a government and establish their own regime - these are the things that "insurrection" usually referred to prior to January 6th and that's why I think it's an inappropriate word for what happened on that day. It seems to me that the word was chosen precisely because of its power and connotations; it immediately conjures up images of treasonous enemies of the state who throughout most of history in most parts of the world would have be executed. 

 

isnt that the charge that Trump faced   From his own judiciary system? Inviting an insurrection?
 

 

glad you know the definition better than the American political system does over a situation that happened in America!

Edited 13 November 2021 by MPH

[Carl the Llama]

26 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

isnt that the charge that Trump faced   From his own judiciary system? Inviting an insurrection?
 

 

glad you know the definition better than the American political system does over a situation that happened in America!

Sorry but Marshall feels the word is too extreme and provocative.  It's irresponsible behaviour to describe the incident using a word coined to specifically describe such incidents and is tantamount to calling for the death of those people (who were, incidentally, calling for the death of people).

 

Or to put it another way: