> 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.

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.

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/...

> 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.

>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).

To add to this, remember that Cuomo was given an award for his handling of the pandemic by the media. I know it has been taken away, but just last year, the media decided to look past his nursing home fiasco and give him an award.

> To add to this, remember that Cuomo was given an award for his handling of the pandemic by the media

The International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is not the same thing as the media in general (of which TV is a subset), and especially not the news media particularly (of which TV is an overlapping set).

"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."

So you recognize that this was intended to help save further lives but you're unhappy about it?

"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."

Who are these masters of the media that were somehow protecting themselves by not covering bodies in elderly homes? Are they the owners of the elderly homes who don't want to get sued into oblivion?

> this was intended to help save further lives but you're unhappy about it?

this was never my point, i just said it is a different event from the one I described.

> Who are these masters of the media

Is'nt it obvious that the mainstream media shill for the Democratic party? They were protecting the leaders of NY, NJ, PA which implemented these policies, and continued these murders even after a large number of deaths were reported.

> the bodies in elderly homes

There weren't literal piles of bodies there, only metaphorical ones, which are difficult to photograph even if you are able to gain access to the site.

“Elderly homes” were a source of bodies, not an accumulation point (the big rigs were an accumulation point of bodies, including the ones coming from elderly homes.)

in that particular case, it was shockingly an (illegal) accumulation point of bodies.

and regarding photos and ability to take them, are'nt you being pedantic? the overall story is journalism... the media chose to bury this incident, gave (and continues to give) a free pass to all who were involved.

And there is a bigger difference:

In both the case where this journalist was killed and in the elderly being killed, mistakes were made, but the intent is important.

One is because some protocols were not followed in the heat of action, the other is because of political considerations, for the state to not use the resources provided by the feds, and hiding this news till later.

Before the bunch of people respond, let us remember our political bias since we all have one, and despite that, try to do the best we can, giving the benefit of doubt.

Note that this policy of shifting elders back to homes was not stopped for months, though makeshift facilities were available, no data was made available, no questions asked.

the only issues that are raised are those the media takes an interest in. Hence my original post.

So this news about bodies in elderly homes was carried by the non-mainstream media?

of course, because they are against the status quo of the establishment.

Journalism is not much about reporting these days, even the AP has started editorializing these days.

intercourse | ˈin(t)ərˌkôrs | noun communication or dealings between individuals or groups: everyday social intercourse.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? )

I figured it would be obvious by my selection of Standard American English, but I am a native speaker of American English.

Native speakers of Indian English or British English have different vernacular, colloquialisms, etc, which is why I specifically commented on Standard American English.

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.

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.

> Probably more than the population of the US.

Well, maybe not so much, but I assure you, the number is in the millions.

Technical existence is the best kind of existence.

You have to be deliberately not looking:

https://books.google.hn/books?id=T0E8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25119912?seq=1#metadata_info_ta...

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1852-06-24/debates/dd891...

These comments about this common word are more suited to the middle school lunchroom than a forum such as this.

I am not denying the existence of this or any other definition. You're arguing with yourself on that front.

We're stating the fact that that specific usage/definition is not really used at all anymore, to the point that "intercourse" is generally used for the other definition of sexual activity. "Public intercourse" is significantly likely more to be read as "public sex", rather than the intended meaning of "public discourse".

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest a correction, because communication with people is about understanding... not being technically correct to win an argument.

You can check out the usage of these two bigrams via google ngram yourself: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=public+interco...

> Technical existence is the best kind of existence.

it's actually not though.

Dictionaries are lagging indicators of word meanings.

And urban dictionaries are fronting indicators of word meanings.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fronting