Reimagined
Anything ending in "-phobic" or "-ist".
Solutioning and nosh, to start with.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2020, 02:58:50 PM
Anything ending in "-phobic" or "-ist".
Arachnophobic? Scientist? Economist? Whist?
For my part, what springs to mind is mostly terms rather than words, strictly speaking:
Antifa
Metrics
Me too'ed
Deliverables
Cancel culture
Thought-leader
Political correctness
(As you can guess, it's misuse and co-optation that really bug me.)
What's the difference between trending words and trendy words?
Anyway, people's responses don't indicate they much care about how trendy the words are, since they just list words they don't like. (In no way is "reimagined" a trendy word. I don't know where it is trending, but nowhere I go.)
I don't like the word "trendy".
I also don't like the words "Trump" and "Zoom". They make me vomit.
According to this list (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-language-monitor-announces-that-covid-is-the-top-word-of-2020-301088114.html), both "truth" and "progress" are trending. Welcome to the new enlightenment?
Mercy! Where to begin?
-impacted;
-in terms of;
-like;
-Right?
-leadership;
-advocate for;
-appeal against.
It will not end for a while.
Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2020, 03:49:40 PM
Mercy! Where to begin?
-impacted;
-in terms of;
-like;
-Right?
-leadership;
-advocate for;
-appeal against.
It will not end for a while.
Does it make a difference whether or not advocate is being used as a noun or a verb? Or do you hate that phrase universally?
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2020, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2020, 03:49:40 PM
Mercy! Where to begin?
-impacted;
-in terms of;
-like;
-Right?
-leadership;
-advocate for;
-appeal against.
It will not end for a while.
Does it make a difference whether or not advocate is being used as a noun or a verb? Or do you hate that phrase universally?
Now, now, no need to get pissy! :-)
The
for adds nothing to
I advocate [world peace]. Used to be that way. Don't know when the superfluous
for became common usage.
Oh, and my biggest bugaboo:
Issues!
We got issues.
legit
Drill down.
Deep dive.
Reach out.
Leverage (as a verb).
Another vote for leverage as a verb. Now, lee-verage is first class!
Oh, and share.
Deceased Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, upon listening to oral argument, during which the arguer said: I'd like to share with you... , responded -- Instead of sharing with us, why don't you just tell us. :-)
Quote from: aside on September 09, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
Drill down.
Deep dive.
Reach out.
Leverage (as a verb).
I'm reaching out so that we can drill down and do a deep dive and leverage the
granularity into something meaningless.
This garbage used to come from the military; now it comes from B-schools. It's meant to obfuscate something meaningless. It's not even wrong! :-)
tease apart
also, I second 'in terms of'.
"Downplay" appeared in two headlines, one on top of the other, on The New York Times front page yesterday.
Also: "double down," which Obama used once or twice and then the media adopted it.
"Reveal," used as a noun.
Also, "bucket list."
"Ask" as a noun. To my ears it sounds either supremely lazy or that the person has neurological problems with word retrieval and is grabbing the next best thing.
What's wrong with the word "request"?
It really is a big ask to get me to accept this.
Larimar
"on brand," stan, simp, "the gram."
"Virtue signalling."
When I hear this term, I think of a delightful exchange between Alex and Louie on the TV series "Taxi." Louie says something to the effect that he doesn't appreciate Alex's "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Alex: "I'm sorry, Louie, but thou art so easy to be holier than."
Quote from: aside on September 09, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
Drill down.
Deep dive.
Reach out.
That sounds almost like an effort to give advice.
Add "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!" and it would look like a football cheer.
Quote from: spork on September 10, 2020, 02:21:26 AM.
Also: "double down," which Obama used once or twice and then the media adopted it.
Is that where it got started? Though I try to overlook overused trendy words, that particular expression has become so omnipresent it even annoys me.
Quote from: apl68 on September 10, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
Quote from: spork on September 10, 2020, 02:21:26 AM.
Also: "double down," which Obama used once or twice and then the media adopted it.
Is that where it got started? Though I try to overlook overused trendy words, that particular expression has become so omnipresent it even annoys me.
It's a Blackjack term.
Cancel.
Seriously, I'm sick of it. Too many people saying they are being canceled when in reality others just think they are idiots, or truly unlikeable.
"reach out to" So-and-So
instead of the more concise
"contact" So-and-So
Quote from: Cheerful on September 10, 2020, 08:35:58 AM
"reach out to" So-and-So
instead of the more concise
"contact" So-and-So
But I need to "reach out" to people so I can "do the ask."
Quote from: fishbrains on September 10, 2020, 08:42:53 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 10, 2020, 08:35:58 AM
"reach out to" So-and-So
instead of the more concise
"contact" So-and-So
But I need to "reach out" to people so I can "do the ask."
Haha. Just saw that aside listed "reach out" before my post.
I should have done a deeper dive into the discussion before sharing. Don't want to downplay other legit contributions. At least 2 votes to cancel reach out.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2020, 08:01:58 AM
Cancel.
Seriously, I'm sick of it. Too many people saying they are being canceled when in reality others just think they are idiots, or truly unlikeable.
I don't think it counts as "cancelling" until you start trying to get someone fired or removed from some position. Just saying you dislike them or think they're an idiot doesn't count.
"New normal" instead of "whatever the hell this is until we figure out what the hell we're doing"
"Grab" instead of any other more polite form of "get"
"Talk about" instead of an actual question from a reporter
+1 to 'new normal'. Ugh, that one gives me the impression of trying to put a saccharine coating over "there is no hope things will get better".
Larimar
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2020, 10:09:24 AM
a somewhat ironic example of exactly what "virtue signalling" refers to.
Ironic, like rain on your wedding day.
Quote from: ohnoes on September 10, 2020, 09:21:14 AM
"New normal" instead of "whatever the hell this is until we figure out what the hell we're doing"
"Grab" instead of any other more polite form of "get"
"Talk about" instead of an actual question from a reporter
Oh yes, "new normal" has got to go. Just a stupid euphemism for "No, there is no solution. Get used to it."
Invite, used as a noun. Does no one issue invitations anymore?
"Dogwhistle" It's such a belittling term as currently used.
"Moving forward", which means forget the garbage I have imposed on you until now, and let's keep going with new garbage.
Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2020, 10:30:50 PM
"Moving forward", which means forget the garbage I have imposed on you until now, and let's keep going with new garbage.
Plus you should not notice that the new garbage is pretty much the same $hit as the old garbage, just re-articulated using the jargon of "transformational, forward-thinking leadership."
Curate.
Why are things that you select now have to sound like it's a museum?
Here are additional votes against the use of "new normal," and "leverage" unless it actually has to do with a lever and force (I'm in engineering, so that could definitely happen).
I also hate gift used as a verb. He gifted me a nice pen when I earned tenure. I was gifted with a cashmere sweater from my mom for my birthday. Ugh.
Quote from: fourhats on September 11, 2020, 06:36:14 AM
Curate.
Why are things that you select now have to sound like it's a museum?
My hunch is that this has happened because of things like Pinterest and cloud storage of digital images, etc. At one time, people had to actually "select" items thoughtfully, but now people make "collections" of all kinds of things just because storage is virtually free. So "curate" carries the idea of an actual living breathing human consciously(!!!) choosing what to include and
what to reject. The museum image may actually fit that.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2020, 07:28:33 AM
Quote from: fourhats on September 11, 2020, 06:36:14 AM
Curate.
Why are things that you select now have to sound like it's a museum?
My hunch is that this has happened because of things like Pinterest and cloud storage of digital images, etc. At one time, people had to actually "select" items thoughtfully, but now people make "collections" of all kinds of things just because storage is virtually free. So "curate" carries the idea of an actual living breathing human consciously(!!!) choosing what to include and what to reject. The museum image may actually fit that.
This is why "curate" has become popular in the library world. Many libraries offer "curated" selections of this and that to save patrons the trouble of trying to dig good stuff out of oceans of junk online. Haven't used the term myself, but then our little library hasn't been doing a whole of that sort of thing either.
I first saw it in shelter magazines, when they did house tours of people's homes. Now it's everywhere. Collections of recipes, books, crafts, and so on.
I complained about "gifted" a few years back on the old forum. It still rubs me the wrong way!
Quote from: fourhats on September 11, 2020, 08:10:33 AM
I complained about "gifted" a few years back on the old forum. It still rubs me the wrong way!
"Gifted" as in "You have a very gifted child," or as in "I gifted that lamp they gave me to somebody at work that I really didn't like"?
Gifted, as in a present, like "I was gifted a new sweater." I'd prefer, "she gave me a new sweater."
Quote from: fourhats on September 11, 2020, 11:15:01 AM
Gifted, as in a present, like "I was gifted a new sweater." I'd prefer, "she gave me a new sweater."
Yeah, that construction is kind of annoying for some reason.
Quote from: apl68 on September 11, 2020, 02:05:41 PM
Quote from: fourhats on September 11, 2020, 11:15:01 AM
Gifted, as in a present, like "I was gifted a new sweater." I'd prefer, "she gave me a new sweater."
Yeah, that construction is kind of annoying for some reason.
Oh I hate that one with the fire of 1,000,000 suns!
Quote from: apl68 on September 10, 2020, 02:41:51 PM
"Dogwhistle" It's such a belittling term as currently used.
How so?
Agree with dislike of "virtue signaling." I feel like it's just used to shout other people down and it doesn't really say anything meaningful. Yes, people would like to appear to be virtuous. Many aspects of our lives are performative. We like to signal things to like-minded people. What's new about that? Am I missing something? (Partly rhetorical question, I know it's because of our toxic politics.)
Transitive 'grow' when applied to social constructs. Growing crystals is great. Growing tomatoes is lovely. Growing your business or your subscriber base is awful.
Veggies. You go to restaurant for a special night out, and 'veggies' are on the menu. If I wanted to do everything in a hurry just so I don't have to be hungry any more, I could have stayed home.
Meds. If I wanted to hang out with people who use slang terms for serious stuff, I could find the neighborhood drug dealer instead of paying for an HMO and a real physician.
TV - never mind. That one's been lost. Way long ago. Just mention it and you're a dinosaur.
'U' in place of the word 'you' in a song title. Of course, chances are good I don't care for the song or the artist anyway, but still. It's repudiating our education.
Quote from: permanent imposter on September 12, 2020, 12:58:00 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 10, 2020, 02:41:51 PM
"Dogwhistle" It's such a belittling term as currently used.
How so?
Agree with dislike of "virtue signaling." I feel like it's just used to shout other people down and it doesn't really say anything meaningful. Yes, people would like to appear to be virtuous. Many aspects of our lives are performative. We like to signal things to like-minded people. What's new about that? Am I missing something? (Partly rhetorical question, I know it's because of our toxic politics.)
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
Interesting about dog whistling. Makes more sense than what i thought previously which was that the idea was that dogs can hear high pitches that people cannot. Thus a racist person could be seduced or summoned by a dog whistling comment by, let's just pick a random person for example, Donald Trump, whereas others wouldn't notice the appeal to racism in the remark, so it would sound benign. But the fact that the person who suspects Trump of everything identified it as dog whistling breaks the logic.
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 12, 2020, 07:52:13 AM
Interesting about dog whistling. Makes more sense than what i thought previously which was that the idea was that dogs can hear high pitches that people cannot. Thus a racist person could be seduced or summoned by a dog whistling comment by, let's just pick a random person for example, Donald Trump, whereas others wouldn't notice the appeal to racism in the remark, so it would sound benign. But the fact that the person who suspects Trump of everything identified it as dog whistling breaks the logic.
I think both of those aspects of it are implied. Together they make a far more disparaging impication about the people responding to them, since not only are they not "normal" for picking up on the signals, but they are not "normal" for the way they react either. It's doubly-dehumanizing.
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on September 12, 2020, 12:58:00 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 10, 2020, 02:41:51 PM
"Dogwhistle" It's such a belittling term as currently used.
How so?
Agree with dislike of "virtue signaling." I feel like it's just used to shout other people down and it doesn't really say anything meaningful. Yes, people would like to appear to be virtuous. Many aspects of our lives are performative. We like to signal things to like-minded people. What's new about that? Am I missing something? (Partly rhetorical question, I know it's because of our toxic politics.)
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
Quote from: Puget on September 12, 2020, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
But the beauty of calling something a "dog-whistle" is that it allows you to make a perfectly non-controversial statement off-limits. For instance, the vast majority of people would say the a human being's worth does not depend on the colour of the person's skin. So, "All lives matter" would be what most people believe. However, by calling it a "dog-whistle to white supremacists" it implies that it's something no decent person would say. Similarly, "Only biological women have uteruses" is scientifically accurate, but by calling it a "dog-whistle to transphobes" it becomes off-limits in polite society.
It's a great way to prevent a point of view (or an objective but inconvenient
fact) from being stated
without ever having to make an argument to suggest why it is wrong.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2020, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 12, 2020, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
But the beauty of calling something a "dog-whistle" is that it allows you to make a perfectly non-controversial statement off-limits. For instance, the vast majority of people would say the a human being's worth does not depend on the colour of the person's skin. So, "All lives matter" would be what most people believe. However, by calling it a "dog-whistle to white supremacists" it implies that it's something no decent person would say. Similarly, "Only biological women have uteruses" is scientifically accurate, but by calling it a "dog-whistle to transphobes" it becomes off-limits in polite society.
It's a great way to prevent a point of view (or an objective but inconvenient fact) from being stated without ever having to make an argument to suggest why it is wrong.
Which only goes to illustrate how tribal we are. 'E Pluribus Unum' - forget it. 'Out of many, many' is more like it. The number of common utterances that mean different things to different groups of people increases steadily.
Quote from: Puget on September 12, 2020, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
Quote from: permanent imposter on September 12, 2020, 12:58:00 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 10, 2020, 02:41:51 PM
"Dogwhistle" It's such a belittling term as currently used.
How so?
Agree with dislike of "virtue signaling." I feel like it's just used to shout other people down and it doesn't really say anything meaningful. Yes, people would like to appear to be virtuous. Many aspects of our lives are performative. We like to signal things to like-minded people. What's new about that? Am I missing something? (Partly rhetorical question, I know it's because of our toxic politics.)
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
I heard that the tweet about 30-50 feral hogs in 3-5 minutes was a way of covertly talking about the number 88 (50+30=80, 5+3=8), and 88 is some code for Heil Hitler, since H is the 8th letter of the alphabet. If so, then that's a pretty good example of a dog whistle. I didn't know about 88, and I didn't read the tweet as anything other than some gun nut inventing absurd scenarios, along the lines of Betsy Devos saying we should arm teachers in case grizzly bears attack schools. But if I had been a member of the 88-fancying crowd, I would probably have smiled and nodded and said, 'yup, that's my dude.'
Connectivity.
How about connection?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2020, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 12, 2020, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
But the beauty of calling something a "dog-whistle" is that it allows you to make a perfectly non-controversial statement off-limits. For instance, the vast majority of people would say the a human being's worth does not depend on the colour of the person's skin. So, "All lives matter" would be what most people believe. However, by calling it a "dog-whistle to white supremacists" it implies that it's something no decent person would say. Similarly, "Only biological women have uteruses" is scientifically accurate, but by calling it a "dog-whistle to transphobes" it becomes off-limits in polite society.
It's a great way to prevent a point of view (or an objective but inconvenient fact) from being stated without ever having to make an argument to suggest why it is wrong.
Good points there.
Quote from: apl68 on September 14, 2020, 08:00:36 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2020, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 12, 2020, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
But the beauty of calling something a "dog-whistle" is that it allows you to make a perfectly non-controversial statement off-limits. For instance, the vast majority of people would say the a human being's worth does not depend on the colour of the person's skin. So, "All lives matter" would be what most people believe. However, by calling it a "dog-whistle to white supremacists" it implies that it's something no decent person would say. Similarly, "Only biological women have uteruses" is scientifically accurate, but by calling it a "dog-whistle to transphobes" it becomes off-limits in polite society.
It's a great way to prevent a point of view (or an objective but inconvenient fact) from being stated without ever having to make an argument to suggest why it is wrong.
Good points there.
When statements become co-opted by appalling people to express appalling views, we tend to stop using them. Swastikas used to be unobjectionable symbols in Hindu and Celtic art and religion before Nazis ruined them. Likewise, 'all lives matter' is self-evidently true in its literal meaning, but the people who use it to mean 'I don't want to have to care about police brutality directed at black people' have ruined it. No one thinks 'all lives matter' as a literal proposition is wrong. They think that the reason behind choosing to align yourself with the people who start using that phrase as code for 'I want to be racist' is wrong.
That's what makes dog-whistling so dangerous: it allows people to make facially true statements ('everyone's life has value') while expressing solidarity with loser racists. And that tricks people who agree with the surface statement into supporting and defending losers.
Quote from: ergative on September 14, 2020, 08:36:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 14, 2020, 08:00:36 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2020, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 12, 2020, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
But the beauty of calling something a "dog-whistle" is that it allows you to make a perfectly non-controversial statement off-limits. For instance, the vast majority of people would say the a human being's worth does not depend on the colour of the person's skin. So, "All lives matter" would be what most people believe. However, by calling it a "dog-whistle to white supremacists" it implies that it's something no decent person would say. Similarly, "Only biological women have uteruses" is scientifically accurate, but by calling it a "dog-whistle to transphobes" it becomes off-limits in polite society.
It's a great way to prevent a point of view (or an objective but inconvenient fact) from being stated without ever having to make an argument to suggest why it is wrong.
Good points there.
When statements become co-opted by appalling people to express appalling views, we tend to stop using them. Swastikas used to be unobjectionable symbols in Hindu and Celtic art and religion before Nazis ruined them. Likewise, 'all lives matter' is self-evidently true in its literal meaning, but the people who use it to mean 'I don't want to have to care about police brutality directed at black people' have ruined it. No one thinks 'all lives matter' as a literal proposition is wrong. They think that the reason behind choosing to align yourself with the people who start using that phrase as code for 'I want to be racist' is wrong.
That's what makes dog-whistling so dangerous: it allows people to make facially true statements ('everyone's life has value') while expressing solidarity with loser racists. And that tricks people who agree with the surface statement into supporting and defending losers.
This perfectly illustrates what I was saying.
Yes, I think we understand each other, but do not agree.
engaged or engagement
instead of active or involvement
talent development
creative content, or if you want to be particularly trendy, just "creative."
forsooth
source as a verb, as in "our coffee is sourced from the wilds of [country/region] and hand-curated, in an email from the NYTimes "every Spelling Bee puzzle is hand-curated..."
Right, and stuff is not only sourced and curated, but also priced.
I expect it's a product of Communications types, hired by Businesses, to avoid saying: We are charging you an arm and a leg. Priced sounds so much more inclusive! :-)
Quote from: Cheerful on September 16, 2020, 07:26:58 AM
engaged or engagement
instead of active or involvement
In this case, I think of "active" and "involved" as being about
action, whereas I think of "engaged" and "engagement" about
interest. So, for instance, in a lab I would say that all the students are active, but only some are engaged.
Is this just me?
Quote from: downer on September 16, 2020, 03:47:11 PM
forsooth
Is "Forsooth" trending, or are you exclaiming archaically at the deplorable trendy terms?
Quote from: Hibush on September 17, 2020, 05:57:52 AM
Quote from: downer on September 16, 2020, 03:47:11 PM
forsooth
Is "Forsooth" trending, or are you exclaiming archaically at the deplorable trendy terms?
I think it is trending as much as many of the other terms being discussed.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2020, 04:46:25 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 16, 2020, 07:26:58 AM
engaged or engagement
instead of active or involvement
In this case, I think of "active" and "involved" as being about action, whereas I think of "engaged" and "engagement" about interest. So, for instance, in a lab I would say that all the students are active, but only some are engaged.
Is this just me?
That's a meaningful distinction. But it seems like in the usage of many they have slipped into being used as synonyms for "active" or "involvement." Which could be annoying if you heard it a lot.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2020, 08:49:07 AM
Quote from: ergative on September 14, 2020, 08:36:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 14, 2020, 08:00:36 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2020, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: Puget on September 12, 2020, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: apl68 on September 12, 2020, 07:38:22 AM
"Dog whistle" is belittling because it implicitly accuses those to whom the "dog whistle" is allegedly directed of being prone to mindless, animal reactions. I've noticed that it is regularly used by mainstream news outlets (I'm looking at you, "New York Times!") of any unprogressive utterance made by right-of-center pundits, officials, or candidates. In other words, those who support such people are no more thoughtful than dogs responding to a whistle. It speaks volumes about the contempt with which those who use the expression hold those of whom they are using it.
In a sense, it's a lot like "virtue signaling." It's something used to shout down others. One expression is used by those on one side of the divide, the other is used by those on the opposite side.
I think you've misunderstood this phrase. A dog whistle is a whistle, used for training, that dogs can hear but humans cannot (because it is too high pitched). So the metaphor is that a "dog whistle" is a message that that insiders will understand but outsiders will not (and so presumably not react negatively to), e.g.,., a coded racist message that fellow-racists will appreciate but will appear benign or go unnoticed by others.
However, when you start saying the quiet part out loud, it is no longer a dog whistle. I don't think we have many left at this point.
But the beauty of calling something a "dog-whistle" is that it allows you to make a perfectly non-controversial statement off-limits. For instance, the vast majority of people would say the a human being's worth does not depend on the colour of the person's skin. So, "All lives matter" would be what most people believe. However, by calling it a "dog-whistle to white supremacists" it implies that it's something no decent person would say. Similarly, "Only biological women have uteruses" is scientifically accurate, but by calling it a "dog-whistle to transphobes" it becomes off-limits in polite society.
It's a great way to prevent a point of view (or an objective but inconvenient fact) from being stated without ever having to make an argument to suggest why it is wrong.
Good points there.
When statements become co-opted by appalling people to express appalling views, we tend to stop using them. Swastikas used to be unobjectionable symbols in Hindu and Celtic art and religion before Nazis ruined them. Likewise, 'all lives matter' is self-evidently true in its literal meaning, but the people who use it to mean 'I don't want to have to care about police brutality directed at black people' have ruined it. No one thinks 'all lives matter' as a literal proposition is wrong. They think that the reason behind choosing to align yourself with the people who start using that phrase as code for 'I want to be racist' is wrong.
That's what makes dog-whistling so dangerous: it allows people to make facially true statements ('everyone's life has value') while expressing solidarity with loser racists. And that tricks people who agree with the surface statement into supporting and defending losers.
This perfectly illustrates what I was saying.
What some are refusing to recognize (or not sufficiently informed to) is that the statement 'all lives matter' is prompted by the statement 'black lives matter' as understood to refer to fatal encounters with police. We know the names George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor et al but we do not know the the names of whites shot and killed by police in recent months, years. So, prompting someone to say something and then declaring it dog whistling is...well, not fair.
"utilize"
Maybe it's not trendy, but it's one of those multi-syllabic words that seems overused. Why not just "use" or "apply?"
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 17, 2020, 08:10:40 AM
"utilize"
Maybe it's not trendy, but it's one of those multi-syllabic words that seems overused. Why not just "use" or "apply?"
I try to use "utilize" when I'm describing using something for something other than it's intended use. Kinda like how I'm always utilizing a butter knife because I've misplaced the screwdriver again.
Quote from: downer on September 17, 2020, 06:07:34 AM
Quote from: Hibush on September 17, 2020, 05:57:52 AM
Quote from: downer on September 16, 2020, 03:47:11 PM
forsooth
Is "Forsooth" trending, or are you exclaiming archaically at the deplorable trendy terms?
I think it is trending as much as many of the other terms being discussed.
A very repeatable phenomenon is that when someone voices a particular grammatical or usage complaint--no matter how specific--it unleashes everybody's urge to unload all their own usage complaints.
Anyone can succumb. Strunk and White's little guide, famous for the admonition "No unnecessary words!" devotes it's final chapter to all the usages that annoyed Prof White.
If he could not resist, what hope do the rest of us have?
I consider it a law of nature.
"Work with students."
If anyone says this in a meeting--as in "Faculty need to 'work with students'"--I now demand a definition and specific examples. It's kind of an a-hole move on my part, but I've yet to find anyone who can do more than stammer through an explanation of what they think they mean by the phrase.
Quote from: fishbrains on September 17, 2020, 10:46:03 AM
"Work with students."
If anyone says this in a meeting--as in "Faculty need to 'work with students'"--I now demand a definition and specific examples. It's kind of an a-hole move on my part, but I've yet to find anyone who can do more than stammer through an explanation of what they think they mean by the phrase.
I believe it means to
suspend the rules. Have seen it used that way in the admissions requirements of a certain program.
deleted.
Quote from: RatGuy on September 17, 2020, 08:30:29 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 17, 2020, 08:10:40 AM
"utilize"
Maybe it's not trendy, but it's one of those multi-syllabic words that seems overused. Why not just "use" or "apply?"
I try to use "utilize" when I'm describing using something for something other than it's intended use. Kinda like how I'm always utilizing a butter knife because I've misplaced the screwdriver again.
That example you gave would be an awkward substitution, all right. Butter knives are just not made for opening paint cans or starting cars.
Oh, and another one: Best practices!
What, we were going to use worst practices? Or are "adequate practices" inadequate?
+1.
And who decides that these practices are the best?
Quote from: dismalist on September 17, 2020, 01:07:53 PM
Oh, and another one: Best practices!
What, we were going to use worst practices? Or are "adequate practices" inadequate?
How would refer to the most effective and evidence-based techniques ane procedures without using such a long phrase as I just did? For instance, if you're talking about teaching, and you want to talk about things like flipped classrooms, active learning, and the kind of ideas in the "Jedi mind tricks" and "sane course policies that make your life easier" threads, what's the overall term you'd use for that?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2020, 01:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 17, 2020, 01:07:53 PM
Oh, and another one: Best practices!
What, we were going to use worst practices? Or are "adequate practices" inadequate?
How would refer to the most effective and evidence-based techniques ane procedures without using such a long phrase as I just did? For instance, if you're talking about teaching, and you want to talk about things like flipped classrooms, active learning, and the kind of ideas in the "Jedi mind tricks" and "sane course policies that make your life easier" threads, what's the overall term you'd use for that?
Trendy? :-)
Rich pedagogy?
Quote from: dismalist on September 17, 2020, 01:45:17 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2020, 01:26:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on September 17, 2020, 01:07:53 PM
Oh, and another one: Best practices!
What, we were going to use worst practices? Or are "adequate practices" inadequate?
How would refer to the most effective and evidence-based techniques ane procedures without using such a long phrase as I just did? For instance, if you're talking about teaching, and you want to talk about things like flipped classrooms, active learning, and the kind of ideas in the "Jedi mind tricks" and "sane course policies that make your life easier" threads, what's the overall term you'd use for that?
Trendy? :-)
Ah, well that's a different issue; i.e. if you think what's being discussed is basically a useless fad. Are there ever things you see that are changes from how things used to be done that you think should become more mainstream in the future? If so, what do you call
them?Quote from: wareagle on September 17, 2020, 01:46:49 PM
Rich pedagogy?
That sounds a bit more abstract and airy-fairy to me; "practices" sound like concrete things that can be done.
QuoteAre there ever things you see that are changes from how things used to be done that you think should become more mainstream in the future?
No. :-)
I am really sick of "lol"
"Deep dive"
Quote from: fourhats on September 17, 2020, 02:44:25 PM
"Deep dive"
Poster named "aside," p. 1 of thread, agrees with you.
Quote from: Cheerful on September 17, 2020, 02:54:24 PM
Quote from: fourhats on September 17, 2020, 02:44:25 PM
"Deep dive"
Poster named "aside," p. 1 of thread, agrees with you.
It took a deep dive into the thread to find that. Good work!
Quote from: Hibush on September 17, 2020, 02:56:15 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on September 17, 2020, 02:54:24 PM
Quote from: fourhats on September 17, 2020, 02:44:25 PM
"Deep dive"
Poster named "aside," p. 1 of thread, agrees with you.
It took a deep dive into the thread to find that. Good work!
Alas, I cannot accept a grade I did not earn.
Back on p. 2, after I posted "reach out," I saw that "reach out" had already been entered among aside's list on p.1. I have some of aside's list memorized now.
Quote from: aside on September 09, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
Drill down.
Deep dive.
Reach out.
Leverage (as a verb).
Was reminded of this sketch from Kids in the Hall. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lStcwT_RGrQ)
Quote"Deep dive"
Poster named "aside," p. 1 of thread, agrees with you.
Oops!
Adulting.
Quote from: Larimar on September 18, 2020, 04:34:04 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on September 17, 2020, 07:13:34 PM
Adulting.
+1 to this one. It's annoying.
Larimar
Didn't this one originate as kind of ironic? As young people became legally of age, the idea that different expectations were being placed on them made them see the situation as somewhat
performative. (They didn't
feel any different, and yet they were expected to
act differently.)
I guess this is my question:
Is there a place for made-up words if they suggest a subtle difference in meaning from existing words?(Such as examples on this thread, like "utilize" instead of "use" to indicate use
for a purpose other than what was intended.)
Snowflake
Triggered
Quote from: wareagle on September 17, 2020, 01:14:34 PM
+1.
And who decides that these practices are the best?
Ideally "best practices" are practices that have been generally agreed upon as standards in a profession. I'm sure that the term can be used as a buzzword. But when you're trying to justify something to your staff, or to your own overseers, it's often useful to be able to show that you've researched your plans to make sure they're in line with best practices in the field. It's a useful concept.
A lot of these phrases are. They just have come to be overused or abused for some reason. Speaking of which...
"Comfort zone"
On my walk to work this morning I thought about somebody who had stepped outside of her "comfort zone"--she had overcome her fears and risen above herself to accomplish something worthwhile. Then it occurred to me that I've long been annoyed at the expression "comfort zone." It's a useful expression, but it has been so overused.
Quote from: Engineer13 on September 18, 2020, 07:14:29 AM
Snowflake
Triggered
This is an interesting combination, since "triggered" is a result of "trigger warnings" given by people trying to protect those that others call "snowflakes".
In other words, the terms come from opposite sides of the same debate. I have a hunch that most people who dislike "trigger warnings" would be willing to have the term "snowflake" banned if "trigger warnings" and anything associated with them were as well.
There are all kinds of things which may, for a variety of reasons, make certain people uncomfortable. That's because human beings are all different. Trying to enumerate the possibilities and have formalized procedures for trying to prevent it is a hole with no bottom. Basic human decency will prevent most people from doing it
knowingly; making it a punishable offense just makes everyone walk on eggshells rather than try to understand and empathize with each other.
"Perfect." For example, when eating out (pre-pandemic; now I do curbside pick-up), it annoyed the hell out of me when the waitstaff would tell me "perfect" after I ordered my meal. In what universe does requesting a chicken sandwich reach a level of perfection? If my order is "perfect," then why are my companions' very different orders also "perfect"? I'd love to tell people how ridiculous the use of the word is in such situations but have not thought of a polite way to do so.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2020, 06:08:36 AM
Quote from: Larimar on September 18, 2020, 04:34:04 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on September 17, 2020, 07:13:34 PM
Adulting.
+1 to this one. It's annoying.
Larimar
Didn't this one originate as kind of ironic? As young people became legally of age, the idea that different expectations were being placed on them made them see the situation as somewhat performative. (They didn't feel any different, and yet they were expected to act differently.)
I guess this is my question:
Is there a place for made-up words if they suggest a subtle difference in meaning from existing words?
(Such as examples on this thread, like "utilize" instead of "use" to indicate use for a purpose other than what was intended.)
+2
Quote from: hmaria1609 on September 18, 2020, 07:23:31 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2020, 06:08:36 AM
Quote from: Larimar on September 18, 2020, 04:34:04 AM
Quote from: Vkw10 on September 17, 2020, 07:13:34 PM
Adulting.
+1 to this one. It's annoying.
Larimar
Didn't this one originate as kind of ironic? As young people became legally of age, the idea that different expectations were being placed on them made them see the situation as somewhat performative. (They didn't feel any different, and yet they were expected to act differently.)
I guess this is my question:
Is there a place for made-up words if they suggest a subtle difference in meaning from existing words?
(Such as examples on this thread, like "utilize" instead of "use" to indicate use for a purpose other than what was intended.)
+2
Adulting didn't bother me much when it was the 18-21 year-olds using it. I'm seeing it used by much older people and about much older people. Hearing 50-year-olds talk about younger people "adulting" sounds condescending to me. Saying a 35-year-old is "adulting" when he pays his own bills sounds like he's doing something unusual and special.
Adulting? C'mon, people. Symmetry usually sets a good standard. How about
-adolesencing;
-teenaging;
-oldaging;
-youthing?
Where do we stop? :-)
WAP
Quote from: Bud on September 19, 2020, 12:20:48 AM
WAP
I'm tired of that kind of person too. Cardi whoever it is.
iconic. Icon.
heart, as a metaphor
red flags
awesome
all psychology terms that are misused
Quote from: dismalist on September 18, 2020, 08:22:16 PM
Adulting? C'mon, people. Symmetry usually sets a good standard. How about
-adolesencing;
-teenaging;
-oldaging;
-youthing?
Where do we stop? :-)
I am now incorporating "oldaging" into my vocabulary. I have my AARP card. I'm entitled.
Quote from: dismalist on September 18, 2020, 08:22:16 PM
Adulting? C'mon, people. Symmetry usually sets a good standard. How about
-adolesencing;
-teenaging;
-oldaging;
-youthing?
Where do we stop? :-)
Dying.
Quote from: Bud on September 19, 2020, 12:20:48 AM
WAP
Since I've just recently learned what WAP means, I cannot swipe a credit card at the store without giggling. My life is just a little bit better because of Cardi B.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 24, 2020, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 18, 2020, 08:22:16 PM
Adulting? C'mon, people. Symmetry usually sets a good standard. How about
-adolesencing;
-teenaging;
-oldaging;
-youthing?
Where do we stop? :-)
Dying.
Don't you mean "deathing"?
Quote from: apl68 on September 24, 2020, 01:00:43 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 24, 2020, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 18, 2020, 08:22:16 PM
Adulting? C'mon, people. Symmetry usually sets a good standard. How about
-adolesencing;
-teenaging;
-oldaging;
-youthing?
Where do we stop? :-)
Dying.
Don't you mean "deathing"?
Thank you!
Not so trendy now (according to marshwiggle), but I always disliked it:
slacktivism
action, when used to mean "standing with a placard and chanting"
Used to travel to Britain a lot. In those days there were always strikes going on. The strikers called their activity "industrial action." I called it "industrial inaction".
Creatives. Something about turning that often meaningless adjective into a noun just grates. Why not call us artists or musicians or whatever?
Weary when wary is meant
FLOTUS
POTUS
Quote from: Harlow2 on September 27, 2020, 06:58:57 PM
Creatives. Something about turning that often meaningless adjective into a noun just grates. Why not call us artists or musicians or whatever?
Weary when wary is meant
In Hollywood, "talent" is a noun used by people in production. It is used to describe actors and writers, who are the material used in their product. The term is used to dehumanize the raw material a bit, while at the same time fluffing the talent's egos.
Quote from: Langue_doc on September 27, 2020, 08:06:46 PM
FLOTUS
POTUS
and probably SCOTUS?
It's kind of odd that the "OTUS" part is what makes them different from other countries, but the terms, (POTUS, FLOTUS, SCOTUS), are only used
within the US, i.e. in communication with people
for whom those would be assumed.
Some of the above reminded me of another one: deliverable, as in "The deliverables we expect from this committee's work are ..."
Quote from: Hibush on September 28, 2020, 05:09:08 AM
Quote from: Harlow2 on September 27, 2020, 06:58:57 PM
Creatives. Something about turning that often meaningless adjective into a noun just grates. Why not call us artists or musicians or whatever?
Weary when wary is meant
In Hollywood, "talent" is a noun used by people in production. It is used to describe actors and writers, who are the material used in their product. The term is used to dehumanize the raw material a bit, while at the same time fluffing the talent's egos.
My wife, the doctor, working in a hospital, is confronted with a middle management group called "talent management". Now there's a contradiction in terms!
"Receipts", when used to mean "evidence" - usually in the form of screenshots.
Not trendy, but the word "methodology". I've yet to read an academic article where the author couldn't have just said "method" or "approach".
QuotePosted by: marshwiggle
« on: September 28, 2020, 05:22:40 AM »Insert Quote
Quote from: Langue_doc on September 27, 2020, 08:06:46 PM
FLOTUS
POTUS
and probably SCOTUS?
It's kind of odd that the "OTUS" part is what makes them different from other countries, but the terms, (POTUS, FLOTUS, SCOTUS), are only used within the US, i.e. in communication with people for whom those would be assumed.
These words have an interesting history, going back to the days of the telegraph, courtesy of Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/scotus-potus-flotus
Quote from: Langue_doc on September 29, 2020, 01:36:37 PM
QuotePosted by: marshwiggle
« on: September 28, 2020, 05:22:40 AM »Insert Quote
Quote from: Langue_doc on September 27, 2020, 08:06:46 PM
FLOTUS
POTUS
and probably SCOTUS?
It's kind of odd that the "OTUS" part is what makes them different from other countries, but the terms, (POTUS, FLOTUS, SCOTUS), are only used within the US, i.e. in communication with people for whom those would be assumed.
These words have an interesting history, going back to the days of the telegraph, courtesy of Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/scotus-potus-flotus
Interesting
Quote
Occasional nonce-usages of -OTUS will come up, such as COTUS (constitution) and TOTUS (teleprompter, in a dig at President Obama's ostensible use of them). Time will tell if additional -OTUS words continue to join our language.
I'm sorry; COTUS is just too close to COITUS to catch on.
QuoteMy wife, the doctor, working in a hospital, is confronted with a middle management group called "talent management". Now there's a contradiction in terms!
"Talent management" is used in university administration too. It's used in HR to refer to attracting and keeping good candidates, among other things. There are now people with that title in academia.
I am getting tired of seeing "react", as in "Celebs react to So and So's Baby News!" or, on LinkedIn, "Be the first to react."
Impacted! I was impacted by the loss of electricity. How about "I was affected by the loss of electricity"?
I was impacted by a spinach and cheese casserole.
Quote from: aside on October 04, 2020, 07:07:38 PM
I was impacted by a spinach and cheese casserole.
I hope you did not suffer burns or contusions.
Multicultural and multiculturalism. The words, and fact that they are mantras.
Quote from: Vkw10 on October 04, 2020, 08:04:29 PM
Quote from: aside on October 04, 2020, 07:07:38 PM
I was impacted by a spinach and cheese casserole.
I hope you did not suffer burns or contusions.
Sounds like the impact was probably more internal.
Ludic.
It's extremely trendy in the Times Literary Supplement, and it's getting on my nerves. I'm not sure it actually means anything.
Not trendy, but just an incorrect word choice that has annoyed me recently and that I just read in the NYTimes:
QuoteThe President is charging into unchartered territory.
Nope. "Uncharted," not "unchartered." Into an unmapped territory, not into a territory without a constitution, although ... hmmm..... now that I think about it, maybe that was some kind of Freudian slip on the part of the NYTimes.
Quote from: Treehugger on October 06, 2020, 06:13:16 AM
Not trendy, but just an incorrect word choice that has annoyed me recently and that I just read in the NYTimes:
QuoteThe President is charging into unchartered territory.
Nope. "Uncharted," not "unchartered." Into an unmapped territory, not into a territory without a constitution, although ... hmmm..... now that I think about it, maybe that was some kind of Freudian slip on the part of the NYTimes.
The folks on CNN were saying "unchartered" as well. I adore Dr. Sanjay Gupta, but I was yelling at him last night. "IT'S FREAKING 'UNCHARTED' TERRITORY!"
Since this thread is heading toward misused words...
It's "spit and image" or "spit 'n image."
Not "spitting image." Images don't spit. For Pete's sake.
I don't think that one originally had to do with spit--I seem to remember that particular phrase as originally a regionalism for "spirit and image." So once we get to "spitting image" (which gets used pretty frequently), we're just xeroxing a xerox, so to speak.
Quote from: histchick on October 06, 2020, 07:49:42 AM
Quote from: Treehugger on October 06, 2020, 06:13:16 AM
Not trendy, but just an incorrect word choice that has annoyed me recently and that I just read in the NYTimes:
QuoteThe President is charging into unchartered territory.
Nope. "Uncharted," not "unchartered." Into an unmapped territory, not into a territory without a constitution, although ... hmmm..... now that I think about it, maybe that was some kind of Freudian slip on the part of the NYTimes.
The folks on CNN were saying "unchartered" as well. I adore Dr. Sanjay Gupta, but I was yelling at him last night. "IT'S FREAKING 'UNCHARTED' TERRITORY!"
Does the NY Times and CNN have joined in the attack on the Constitution? Strange bedfellows in this conspiracy!
"Moreish". Used with food that tastes so good you want more. I only see it in UK publications, and I hate it.
Moorish food is Ok, however.
Department of Literatures In English (https://boingboing.net/2020/10/07/cornell-english-department-votes-to-change-name-to-department-of-literatures-in-english.html)
If your literature faculty are so divisive they can't unify around literature, and their effort to throw off the yokes of the grammarians' hegemony succeeds. Not to mention the Communications people who are so far removed from the Ivory Tower that they consider the reader's interpretation of what you write.
The comments in the link are informative, BTW.
narrative
On Canvas, deliverables as a synonym for assignments.
This one has bugged me for years, and I still don't quite know what to make of it:
Competitive
I used to be asked occasionally "Is your program competitive?" That could have meant we took very few applicants. Or, it could mean we took many, but were so good that we easily competed with, well, competing programs.
I understand when a sport is competitive. Thus, in analogy, elections are competitive. But I just read somewhere "If you're in a competitive district in a competitive election, the chances that your vote will flip a national election ... [are some small number]".
Does "competitive" mean "easily changeable" or some such? Or is it just ambiguous or vague or merely multivalenced?
Polarized (as in: discourse).
Quote from: dismalist on October 30, 2020, 05:26:56 PM
This one has bugged me for years, and I still don't quite know what to make of it:
Competitive
I used to be asked occasionally "Is your program competitive?" That could have meant we took very few applicants. Or, it could mean we took many, but were so good that we easily competed with, well, competing programs.
I understand when a sport is competitive. Thus, in analogy, elections are competitive. But I just read somewhere "If you're in a competitive district in a competitive election, the chances that your vote will flip a national election ... [are some small number]".
Does "competitive" mean "easily changeable" or some such? Or is it just ambiguous or vague or merely multivalenced?
As opposed to "recreational"? A competitive college program might be one in which the students compete with one another (rather than cooperating).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 30, 2020, 07:23:02 PM
Polarized (as in: discourse).
From a physics/chemistry point of view, "polarized" seems to describe being directly opposed, i.e. the antithesis of "cooperative" or "collaborative" where people look for common ground.
I've been trying to think of alternatives.
disrespectful?
confrontational?
inflammatory?
None of these work as well, in my opinion.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2020, 01:49:30 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 30, 2020, 07:23:02 PM
Polarized (as in: discourse).
From a physics/chemistry point of view, "polarized" seems to describe being directly opposed, i.e. the antithesis of "cooperative" or "collaborative" where people look for common ground.
I've been trying to think of alternatives.
disrespectful?
confrontational?
inflammatory?
None of these work as well, in my opinion.
divided sounds better to me.
Majorly
Wholesale
'I can't buy into the argument wholesale.' (Well, at least the metaphor is maintained.)
Since March, I have come to loath "social distancing" as a phrase, not as a practice. I do not dispute the science of preventing the spread of communicable diseases by telling people not to closely associate with other people. But that is not really "social distance" but physical distance, or just distance.
Today I went to several establishments that had signs that said something like: Be safe and socially distance. Keep six feet away. Honestly, I often socially distanced myself before Covid, even when I was in a crowd.
It is possible to be socially distant and still be within six feet of somebody, and it is possible to be a thousand miles away and still not be socially distant. It would seem that, as a matter of public mental health, it would be advisable to tell people that they should NOT socially distance themselves, even when it becomes necessary to not come into close proximity to other people.
Before March, references I saw to "social distance" referred to either social psychology or linguistics. Racial prejudice or segregation is a way to keep social distance, even while keeping physical proximity. Or, if I wish to socially distance myself from somebody, I may use the formal third person instead of the familiar second person.
(Ironically, what we are being asked to do to help prevent disease is to segregate ourselves. However, given the history of the United States, "segregation" has connotations that make it unusable. So we use "socially distance" to replace to "segregation," just as in the past, we used "segregation" to replace "socially distance." In the process, we erase the distinction between segregation--keeping physically separate--and socially distance--keeping socially distant--thus confusing things even more.)
Obviously, the dangers of Covid extend far beyond this, but still I find it bothersome.
karen
Regular words: Loathe "feeling snacky"
Intellectual words: Not big on 'imbricate'
'rock star'
A disappointing term of praise, it is used to describe super achievers in almost any arena who turning out to be more admirable by far than most rock stars.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 03, 2020, 05:35:09 AM
karen
I have very, very deep feelings any time I see that one. I've mentioned elsewhere here that a friend and staff member of mine, named Karen, was murdered several years ago, in her own home, by two Black youths. As there was nothing of value for them to steal, and she and the granddaughter they shot and left for dead were the only white household in the neighborhood, it's pretty evident that it was a hate crime. But has never been recognized as such. Given how this Karen's life on Earth ended, I've never seen a more savage irony than the way the name has come to be used.
Quote from: apl68 on November 04, 2020, 10:26:25 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 03, 2020, 05:35:09 AM
karen
I have very, very deep feelings any time I see that one. I've mentioned elsewhere here that a friend and staff member of mine, named Karen, was murdered several years ago, in her own home, by two Black youths. As there was nothing of value for them to steal, and she and the granddaughter they shot and left for dead were the only white household in the neighborhood, it's pretty evident that it was a hate crime. But has never been recognized as such. Given how this Karen's life on Earth ended, I've never seen a more savage irony than the way the name has come to be used.
And white progressives will never,
ever recognize it as such. Sadly.
Quote from: apl68 on November 04, 2020, 10:26:25 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 03, 2020, 05:35:09 AM
karen
I have very, very deep feelings any time I see that one. I've mentioned elsewhere here that a friend and staff member of mine, named Karen, was murdered several years ago, in her own home, by two Black youths. As there was nothing of value for them to steal, and she and the granddaughter they shot and left for dead were the only white household in the neighborhood, it's pretty evident that it was a hate crime. But has never been recognized as such. Given how this Karen's life on Earth ended, I've never seen a more savage irony than the way the name has come to be used.
What a terrible story. Sorry.
Even without knowing that, it's clear that 'karen' is an intentional way to foment hatred. They say 'think about this white privilege woman who throws her weight around because she can and let's give her a name because then it will be more fun to indulge our hate.'.Wait...they're not done. Have you heard this yet? They give her a blond full head of hair clipped in a certain way which is designated as the "let me speak to the manager" haircut.' The more specifics about the person, the more realistic and vivid the hate. Meanwhile 'white privilege' has been defined as something that we often don't know we have, so that would mean that while the behavior is considered unendearingly haughty, it's not really deliberately so, but you still get to attribute the motive. Why is this fair? Because...of course...we once had slavery.
The end of the Golden Rule.
These are the kind of progressives who bring out my diabolical side, make me feel like I would probably prefer President Biden, but I would like President Trump for them, because they deserve him.
Identity politics was a big loser this time: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/the-biggest-loser-of-election-2020-identity-politics
Aside: one of my buddies as work is a black lady named Karen...(!) What do we do now?
Quoteit's pretty evident that it was a hate crime. But has never been recognized as such. Given how this Karen's life on Earth ended, I've never seen a more savage irony than the way the name has come to be used.
.
Quote
And white progressives will never, ever recognize it as such. Sadly
But thank God, we got rid of that toxic Aunt Jemima.
Ask as a noun
The ask here is that they tell us how they are using the system.
Does it "scale"?
No, I've already scaled my fish.
Quote from: dismalist on November 11, 2020, 08:24:10 PM
Does it "scale"?
No, I've already scaled my fish.
If you are in R&D, being able to scale up a prototype to commercial use is so common a concern, that "Does it scale?" is shorthand for an obligatory checkbox on almost everything.
Quote from: Hibush on November 12, 2020, 02:04:57 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 11, 2020, 08:24:10 PM
Does it "scale"?
No, I've already scaled my fish.
If you are in R&D, being able to scale up a prototype to commercial use is so common a concern, that "Does it scale?" is shorthand for an obligatory checkbox on almost everything.
My problem with the use of the term, bastardized with lack of comprehension from Economics, is that things always scale! The meaningful question is: At what cost?
1. womxn
Fortunately, there is auto spell correct. 'Womxn' reverts to 'women.' Wikipedia says
"The term womxn (/ˈwʊmɪn/) is an alternative spelling of the English word woman. It is used, particularly by intersectional feminists, to avoid perceived sexism in the standard spelling[1] and to explicitly include or foreground transgender and nonbinary people.[2][3][4] Womxn was first used after 2010 and has since been adopted by various organizations, including university groups in the US and UK.[2][5][6] The term has been praised as being more inclusive than women and other terms (such as womyn). Conversely, it has been criticized as being unnecessary, confusing, or conflicting with the uncommonness of mxn to describe men.[7][8][4]"
I think instead of being annoyed I'm just going to start looking at this stuff as entertainment.
2. uplifting as a verb. 'Our organization has been uplifting marginalized groups from the community.'
Quote from: mahagonny on November 16, 2020, 07:38:39 AM
2. uplifting as a verb. 'Our organization has been uplifting marginalized groups from the community.'
I like the imagery of a more standard construction:
"Our organization has been lifting marginalized groups up from the community."
Presumably, the organization overlooks the community.
'Journey' to describe almost any kind of experience.
Quote from: FKM100 on November 20, 2020, 04:41:26 AM
'Journey' to describe almost any kind of experience.
A prime example of a powerful metaphor that gets trivialized through haphazard use.
I'm starting to get a little tired of "intentional," as used in sentences like "We must be intentional in our efforts to accomplish [thing that is really important], or "Be intentional in your reading."
I am rather surprised that the word actionable hasn't turned up yet. I despise the use of this term to describe a thing that one can do. I once asked, after someone deployed this execrable example of MBA-speak, why one would want to develop a list of things to, as one online dictionary puts it, "[give] sufficient reason to take legal action." Yes, I see that the dictionary, in the best tradition of descriptive rather than prescriptive dictionaries, has provided the "able to be done" definition as well. Still, I'd rather hear fingernails on a chalkboard (google it if you're under 30) than hear this legal jargon tossed about by associate vice whatevers.
More expeditiously. This one may be a local trend, but I have recent emails from three people using it instead of "soon" or "by X".
I have seen the word "delighted" used way too many times recently. Is this a thing now? Everyone seems to be so delighted all the time. Delighted to tell you about a new hire, delighted to let you know that a new book has come out, etc.
Quote from: ab_grp on November 22, 2020, 07:55:33 AM
I have seen the word "delighted" used way too many times recently. Is this a thing now? Everyone seems to be so delighted all the time. Delighted to tell you about a new hire, delighted to let you know that a new book has come out, etc.
Delighted that you have pointed this out to us.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 22, 2020, 09:00:06 AM
Quote from: ab_grp on November 22, 2020, 07:55:33 AM
I have seen the word "delighted" used way too many times recently. Is this a thing now? Everyone seems to be so delighted all the time. Delighted to tell you about a new hire, delighted to let you know that a new book has come out, etc.
Delighted that you have pointed this out to us.
I'm delighted to have been of service.
Yeah, what is it with "delighted?" Our Chancellor announced he was "delighted" that the Board passed a multi-year plan which included massive budget cuts to "stabilize" the college. Is he so "delighted" with the management team that messed up so badly we had to do these cuts in the first place?
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 22, 2020, 12:04:04 PM
Yeah, what is it with "delighted?"
On another thread, there's a discussion of the overuse of "outraged". The two are a symptom of what out society has become;
all the emotional intensity, all the time. Every issue must be black and white, and every good and rational person must see it exactly the same way.
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 22, 2020, 12:04:04 PM
Yeah, what is it with "delighted?" Our Chancellor announced he was "delighted" that the Board passed a multi-year plan which included massive budget cuts to "stabilize" the college. Is he so "delighted" with the management team that messed up so badly we had to do these cuts in the first place?
Or delighted to announce that a reorganization has taken place! Never mind the extensive "difficult staffing decisions" that were made as part of the restructuring. Luckily, none of the delighted higher ups were affected. And, the organization is now much more agile! It's delightful.
Famishing as a verb.
Tranche.
I had hoped we had seen the last of it, but people and institutions seem to be pivoting again. Not sure if it is the harsh winter winds, the impending winter solstice, or something else causing things to begin turning.
"Misdirection" and "disinformation"
Let's just call them "lies" and be done with it.
Well, in writing mysteries, "misdirection" is a thing--the writer does a sort of sleight-of-hand emphasis that draws your attention away from that tasty clue they had to plant in the middle of everything for continuity's sake, later.
But otherwise, yeah, it's just a porkie.
M.
Pivot.
To "call out".
How about "to criticize"?
Another defining down of meaning?
Quote from: dismalist on January 05, 2021, 11:31:07 PM
To "call out".
How about "to criticize"?
Another defining down of meaning?
It's a propoganda thing. If you "criticize" someone, it implies the possibility that your criticism is invalid, but if you "call them out", then it implies their behaviour is objectively and universally recognized as wrong.
Why would I wants to actually consider that someone doing something I don't like might have legitimate reasons? It's much easier to stay ensconced in my sanctimonious bubble.
Quote from: dismalist on January 05, 2021, 11:31:07 PM
To "call out".
How about "to criticize"?
Another defining down of meaning?
"Call out" is concerning to me because it's such a violent metaphor. You're not simply disagreeing with somebody or pointing out a mistake, you're challenging them to a fight. Its popularity speaks volumes about how extreme the tone of debate in our society has become.
Quote from: apl68 on January 06, 2021, 06:15:55 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 05, 2021, 11:31:07 PM
To "call out".
How about "to criticize"?
Another defining down of meaning?
"Call out" is concerning to me because it's such a violent metaphor. You're not simply disagreeing with somebody or pointing out a mistake, you're challenging them to a fight. Its popularity speaks volumes about how extreme the tone of debate in our society has become.
It's the modern equivalent of trial by combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat#:~:text=Trial%20by%20combat%20(also%20wager,was%20proclaimed%20to%20be%20right.):
Quote
Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right.
And the "field of battle" is social media, mostly.
"Like", as in one of the options on what to do with my campus email (in addition to the other options of "reply", "reply all", and "forward". If only I could tag messages as those that I "like", "dislike", or "actively and vehemently dislike" with no repercussions! I didn't realize that you were supposed to "like" whiny or inane emails.
Whataboutism
ubertalented
Quote from: mahagonny on January 21, 2021, 06:00:16 AM
ubertalented
Uber
®talented is someting of an oxymoron these days.
Pricing.
What's wrong with "prices"?
Quote from: dismalist on January 26, 2021, 02:49:59 PM
Pricing.
What's wrong with "prices"?
"Pricing" makes it sound like a strategic and analytical process, mysterious, and unable to justify discounts.
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 06:52:01 AM
"Like", as in one of the options on what to do with my campus email (in addition to the other options of "reply", "reply all", and "forward". If only I could tag messages as those that I "like", "dislike", or "actively and vehemently dislike" with no repercussions! I didn't realize that you were supposed to "like" whiny or inane emails.
How weird that this social media-like (heh) option is available for campus email. What is it supposed to accomplish? Anyone else have this?
Quote from: permanent imposter on January 30, 2021, 09:40:28 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 06, 2021, 06:52:01 AM
"Like", as in one of the options on what to do with my campus email (in addition to the other options of "reply", "reply all", and "forward". If only I could tag messages as those that I "like", "dislike", or "actively and vehemently dislike" with no repercussions! I didn't realize that you were supposed to "like" whiny or inane emails.
How weird that this social media-like (heh) option is available for campus email. What is it supposed to accomplish? Anyone else have this?
We should have a folder called 'kiss my ass' and after reading a particular email you could place it in that folder.
on point
primarying
Quote from: dismalist on February 01, 2021, 11:41:36 AM
primarying
I haven't heard this one. Can you give an example? Sounds bizarre.
Quote from: wareagle on February 02, 2021, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: dismalist on February 01, 2021, 11:41:36 AM
primarying
I haven't heard this one. Can you give an example? Sounds bizarre.
Yes, came across it the second time yesterday. There is discussion that Schumer may be
primaried by AOC. The left may not get into primarying if incumbents change their policies.
Yes, it is bizarre. It means challenging someone in a primary. Why not just say that?
Because it also means sending your minions to do it someplace you can't run. It's what Trump and his minions have either done or threatened to do (see Junior pre-insurrection speech) (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-jr-threatens-to-campaign-against-lawmakers-who-refuse-to-challenge-electoral-college-results).
Quote from: FishProf on February 02, 2021, 12:48:27 PM
Because it also means sending your minions to do it someplace you can't run. It's what Trump and his minions have either done or threatened to do (see Junior pre-insurrection speech) (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-jr-threatens-to-campaign-against-lawmakers-who-refuse-to-challenge-electoral-college-results).
to primaryThis isn't about substance or politics; it's about use of a particular word in the English language. The headline of the Fox news article reads
QuoteTrump Jr. threatens to campaign against lawmakers who refuse to challenge Electoral College results
The term
to primary doesn't show up in the body of the text, either.
So, that was
an example. Quote from: dismalist on February 02, 2021, 01:03:42 PM
This isn't about substance or politics; it's about use of a particular word in the English language.
This is a term
about politics. It's what Trump Jr said they were going to do.
It's also what AOC has threatened to do.
(I'm not sure what you are objecting to here...)
Quote from: dismalist on February 02, 2021, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: wareagle on February 02, 2021, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: dismalist on February 01, 2021, 11:41:36 AM
primarying
I haven't heard this one. Can you give an example? Sounds bizarre.
Yes, came across it the second time yesterday. There is discussion that Schumer may be primaried by AOC. The left may not get into primarying if incumbents change their policies.
Yes, it is bizarre. It means challenging someone in a primary. Why not just say that?
My understanding, like with many other "trendy" words on here, is that it is about
context. In this case, (based on my hazy understanding of the American primary system), in a very safe seat for a particular party, whoever the candidate is for that party is likely to be elected. If a person can win a primary with a lot less support than needed to win the seat, then it is a sort of back door into office.
In other words, in a normal constituency where the election would be quite competitive, challenging someone in a primary wouldn't be called "primarying"
because it wouldn't have that connotation of a back door into office. (That's my outsider's perception. I stand to be corrected.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 02, 2021, 10:18:54 AM
Quote from: wareagle on February 02, 2021, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: dismalist on February 01, 2021, 11:41:36 AM
primarying
I haven't heard this one. Can you give an example? Sounds bizarre.
Yes, came across it the second time yesterday. There is discussion that Schumer may be primaried by AOC. The left may not get into primarying if incumbents change their policies.
Yes, it is bizarre. It means challenging someone in a primary. Why not just say that?
My understanding, like with many other "trendy" words on here, is that it is about context. In this case, (based on my hazy understanding of the American primary system), in a very safe seat for a particular party, whoever the candidate is for that party is likely to be elected. If a person can win a primary with a lot less support than needed to win the seat, then it is a sort of back door into office.
In other words, in a normal constituency where the election would be quite competitive, challenging someone in a primary wouldn't be called "primarying" because it wouldn't have that connotation of a back door into office.
(That's my outsider's perception. I stand to be corrected.)
Oh my god! You are at least partly correct. There is even a book with the title
Getting Primaried from as long ago as 2013. It's interpreted somewhat more broadly than we have been using it here, though.
Anyway, I don't like the word and will not use it. :-)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 01:14:44 PM
My understanding, like with many other "trendy" words on here, is that it is about context. In this case, (based on my hazy understanding of the American primary system), in a very safe seat for a particular party, whoever the candidate is for that party is likely to be elected. If a person can win a primary with a lot less support than needed to win the seat, then it is a sort of back door into office.
(That's my outsider's perception. I stand to be corrected.)
Not corrected, but supplemented: It can force a candidate into an expensive primary campaign that they have neither the interest or funds to undertake. That's part of the blackmail piece with the AOC bit above.
Additionally, in 2010 this is what the Tea Party did to several established Republicans. They all then went on to lose in the general elections. But, I don't think they used the dreaded term.
Quote from: dismalist on February 02, 2021, 01:21:39 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 02, 2021, 10:18:54 AM
My understanding, like with many other "trendy" words on here, is that it is about context. In this case, (based on my hazy understanding of the American primary system), in a very safe seat for a particular party, whoever the candidate is for that party is likely to be elected. If a person can win a primary with a lot less support than needed to win the seat, then it is a sort of back door into office.
In other words, in a normal constituency where the election would be quite competitive, challenging someone in a primary wouldn't be called "primarying" because it wouldn't have that connotation of a back door into office.
(That's my outsider's perception. I stand to be corrected.)
Oh my god! You are at least partly correct. There is even a book with the title Getting Primaried from as long ago as 2013. It's interpreted somewhat more broadly than we have been using it here, though.
Anyway, I don't like the word and will not use it. :-)
That's fine. I don't have a reason to use it here. Anyway I'm just fascinated (as I said above) that so many of these terms seem to have come about to describe a familiar concept but in a very specific context. It's somewhat like like the converse of academic disciplines where ordinary words get very particular discipline-specific meanings; here we have ordinary concepts given context-specific word usage.
Quote from: FishProf on February 02, 2021, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 02, 2021, 01:14:44 PM
My understanding, like with many other "trendy" words on here, is that it is about context. In this case, (based on my hazy understanding of the American primary system), in a very safe seat for a particular party, whoever the candidate is for that party is likely to be elected. If a person can win a primary with a lot less support than needed to win the seat, then it is a sort of back door into office.
(That's my outsider's perception. I stand to be corrected.)
Not corrected, but supplemented: It can force a candidate into an expensive primary campaign that they have neither the interest or funds to undertake. That's part of the blackmail piece with the AOC bit above.
Additionally, in 2010 this is what the Tea Party did to several established Republicans. They all then went on to lose in the general elections. But, I don't think they used the dreaded term.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
"influencer", as in Instagram, Facebook, etc.
For a very amorphous definition, it gets use like virtually a job title.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2021, 08:27:32 AM
"influencer", as in Instagram, Facebook, etc.
For a very amorphous definition, it gets use like virtually a job title.
An amorphous title for an amorphous job.
Here's a trendy word I like because I don't like it: 'BIPOC.' This word has arrived because 'POC' is being considered inoperative, which is a good sign if, as I suspect, it means the identity politics culture is on the verge of disintegrating.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 05, 2021, 03:57:15 PM
Here's a trendy word I like because I don't like it: 'BIPOC.' This word has arrived because 'POC' is being considered inoperative, which is a good sign if, as I suspect, it means the identity politics culture is on the verge of disintegrating.
I don't follow your reasoning, but I don't like the term BIPOC either. It feels as though it minimizes the racism that Liquidspouse experienced as a POC because he isn't the right kind of POC.
As a marketeer by profession, I am hating the misuse of the word "brand."
Quote from: Liquidambar on February 05, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 05, 2021, 03:57:15 PM
Here's a trendy word I like because I don't like it: 'BIPOC.' This word has arrived because 'POC' is being considered inoperative, which is a good sign if, as I suspect, it means the identity politics culture is on the verge of disintegrating.
I don't follow your reasoning, but I don't like the term BIPOC either. It feels as though it minimizes the racism that Liquidspouse experienced as a POC because he isn't the right kind of POC.
I'm sorry to hear that he had these two experiences.
This gets to the heart of the issue in my opinion. All human beings must suffer in many ways, and meeting people who aren't nice is one of those ways, and racism is just one way that people are not nice. But I get the impression these days that the BIPOC term is being promoted by those who want to make a case for their suffering to be seen as special. I think no one's suffering is special. Suffering is suffering. What we signed up for.
Of course it makes sense to pay attention to how certain groups have gotten a bad deal. But it's become a contest in some kinds of discussions.
ETA: if someone's pushing for reparations there will be a fight about who should get more.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 06, 2021, 04:50:41 AM
Quote from: Liquidambar on February 05, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 05, 2021, 03:57:15 PM
Here's a trendy word I like because I don't like it: 'BIPOC.' This word has arrived because 'POC' is being considered inoperative, which is a good sign if, as I suspect, it means the identity politics culture is on the verge of disintegrating.
I don't follow your reasoning, but I don't like the term BIPOC either. It feels as though it minimizes the racism that Liquidspouse experienced as a POC because he isn't the right kind of POC.
I'm sorry to hear that he had these two experiences.
This gets to the heart of the issue in my opinion. All human beings must suffer in many ways, and meeting people who aren't nice is one of those ways, and racism is just one way that people are not nice. But I get the impression these days that the BIPOC term is being promoted by those who want to make a case for their suffering to be seen as special. I think no one's suffering is special. Suffering is suffering. What we signed up for.
Of course it makes sense to pay attention to how certain groups have gotten a bad deal. But it's become a contest in some kinds of discussions.
ETA: if someone's pushing for reparations there will be a fight about who should get more.
Observing different cultures and different historical periods shows that who counts as "us" and who counts as "them" is not remotely consistent. I was just watching a show set in Scotland circa 1950. The "other" despised group are Irish travelers, despite the fact that both groups are white, speak the same language, and are basically the same religion (although one group is Protestant and one is Catholic.) Making an arbitrary "oppression hierarchy" that is projected back through all time completely ignores reality.
I'm beginning to think that the term "data aggregation" simply means making the data or numbers say what you want them to say--especially when they refuse to let us see the raw data that experienced the "aggregation."
QuoteObserving different cultures and different historical periods shows that who counts as "us" and who counts as "them" is not remotely consistent. I was just watching a show set in Scotland circa 1950. The "other" despised group are Irish travelers, despite the fact that both groups are white, speak the same language, and are basically the same religion (although one group is Protestant and one is Catholic.) Making an arbitrary "oppression hierarchy" that is projected back through all time completely ignores reality.
Hell, when I was growing up in the Bronx things were exactly like that -- Irish against the Italians, Italians against the Puerto Ricans. Actually, the Irish against everybody else. There was fighting, but without weapons.
Junior High School was an experience!
Quote from: dismalist on February 06, 2021, 11:18:53 AM
QuoteObserving different cultures and different historical periods shows that who counts as "us" and who counts as "them" is not remotely consistent. I was just watching a show set in Scotland circa 1950. The "other" despised group are Irish travelers, despite the fact that both groups are white, speak the same language, and are basically the same religion (although one group is Protestant and one is Catholic.) Making an arbitrary "oppression hierarchy" that is projected back through all time completely ignores reality.
Hell, when I was growing up in the Bronx things were exactly like that -- Irish against the Italians, Italians against the Puerto Ricans. Actually, the Irish against everybody else. There was fighting, but without weapons.
Junior High School was an experience!
Every school at every level any place on Earth?
"off of", as in the drugstore is off of Route 1. How about is "on" Route 1?
"out of", as in my friend is based out of Atlanta. How about is based "in" Atlanta?
I could go on. I appreciate that language changes, but what is being gained here? There are more words, not fewer, to describe a phenomenon. As in Amadeus: Too many notes!
"this space" or "in this space" to refer to a sector, issue-area, or problem.
"We need more enrollments in this space."
"We need more careful thinking in this space."
"We're doing new things in this space."
"There are huge opportunities for return on investment in this space."
"tools" is now used for things that are not tools, e.g. vaccine is a tool to stem the epidemic. And they are stored in a toolbox, no less.
The tool box is in a certain space, too, I guess.
Quote from: dismalist on February 11, 2021, 11:24:05 AM
"tools" is now used for things that are not tools, e.g. vaccine is a tool to stem the epidemic. And they are stored in a toolbox, no less.
The tool box is in a certain space, too, I guess.
I've been using this terminology in a similarly expansive way in place of the previously common "arsenal". We are not waging war, so that seemed much worse.
Quote from: Cheerful on February 11, 2021, 11:20:41 AM
"this space" or "in this space" to refer to a sector, issue-area, or problem.
Academic organizations that choose that terminology tend also to have administrative titles like "Chief XXX Officer." It must feel trendier than Associate Vice Provost for XXX, but it sounds stupid.
Quote from: Hibush on February 11, 2021, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 11, 2021, 11:24:05 AM
"tools" is now used for things that are not tools, e.g. vaccine is a tool to stem the epidemic. And they are stored in a toolbox, no less.
The tool box is in a certain space, too, I guess.
I've been using this terminology in a similarly expansive way in place of the previously common "arsenal". We are not waging war, so that seemed much worse.
Well, in case of war, arsenal does sound a lot better. :-)
The Venetian Arsenal is a lot better than the Venetian toolbox. :-)
Quote from: Hibush on February 11, 2021, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 11, 2021, 11:24:05 AM
"tools" is now used for things that are not tools, e.g. vaccine is a tool to stem the epidemic. And they are stored in a toolbox, no less.
The tool box is in a certain space, too, I guess.
I've been using this terminology in a similarly expansive way in place of the previously common "arsenal". We are not waging war, so that seemed much worse.
This is really old though. Tools of the trade dates back to the early 1800s at least.
I've heard it used in baseball in place of attributes (see 5 tool player) since I was a kid in the early 1960s.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 11, 2021, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: Hibush on February 11, 2021, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 11, 2021, 11:24:05 AM
"tools" is now used for things that are not tools, e.g. vaccine is a tool to stem the epidemic. And they are stored in a toolbox, no less.
The tool box is in a certain space, too, I guess.
I've been using this terminology in a similarly expansive way in place of the previously common "arsenal". We are not waging war, so that seemed much worse.
This is really old though. Tools of the trade dates back to the early 1800s at least.
I've heard it used in baseball in place of attributes (see 5 tool player) since I was a kid in the early 1960s.
Sure, when tools of the trade involves actual tools. :-)
The baseball example is what I object to. I will not use the term in baseball! :-)
Quote from: dismalist on February 11, 2021, 04:19:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 11, 2021, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: Hibush on February 11, 2021, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 11, 2021, 11:24:05 AM
"tools" is now used for things that are not tools, e.g. vaccine is a tool to stem the epidemic. And they are stored in a toolbox, no less.
The tool box is in a certain space, too, I guess.
I've been using this terminology in a similarly expansive way in place of the previously common "arsenal". We are not waging war, so that seemed much worse.
This is really old though. Tools of the trade dates back to the early 1800s at least.
I've heard it used in baseball in place of attributes (see 5 tool player) since I was a kid in the early 1960s.
Sure, when tools of the trade involves actual tools. :-)
The baseball example is what I object to. I will not use the term in baseball! :-)
I'm cool with not liking or using it. I'm objecting to calling it trendy:-)
Did anyone mention "adulting" yet?
Quote from: wareagle on February 12, 2021, 02:46:31 PM
Did anyone mention "adulting" yet?
Mercy, hadn't heard or read that one yet.
Because "adulting" means "acting like an adult", "whiting" must be next.
Quote from: dismalist on February 12, 2021, 02:57:31 PM
Quote from: wareagle on February 12, 2021, 02:46:31 PM
Did anyone mention "adulting" yet?
Mercy, hadn't heard or read that one yet.
Because "adulting" means "acting like an adult", "whiting" must be next.
Voting while white...https://www.vox.com/2020/11/7/21551364/white-trump-voters-2020
"Unfortunate incident" as applied to an appalling situation that likely had numerous foreshadowing incidents. ETA a link to the unfortunate incident I'm talking about: https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/ventura/2021/02/19/oxnard-college-professor-michael-abram-put-leave-after-viral-video
jab
best practices
Where in hell did this term come from? An MBA factory?
What, would we do worst practices?
Me, I like adequate practices.
Quote from: dismalist on April 29, 2021, 02:29:18 PM
best practices
Where in hell did this term come from? An MBA factory?
What, would we do worst practices?
Me, I like adequate practices.
I'm fond of mediocre practices. Okay practices. Reasonably good practices. Not bad practices.
I agree, I hate this term. Who decides what is "best"?
In my experience, "Best Practices" just means I want to do it this way, so get it line.
When I ask for details about the sources, I am just being difficult.
Quote from: FishProf on April 29, 2021, 05:01:56 PM
In my experience, "Best Practices" just means I want to do it this way, so get it line.
When I ask for details about the sources, I am just being difficult.
Yup.
My new annoying trendy word that I have caught myself using, because everyone is using it, is "efficacy."
Quote from: lightning on April 29, 2021, 09:11:39 PM
My new annoying trendy word that I have caught myself using, because everyone is using it, is "efficacy."
At least it starts with "eff." That could come in handy.
Quote from: lightning on April 29, 2021, 09:11:39 PM
My new annoying trendy word that I have caught myself using, because everyone is using it, is "efficacy."
Go all out. Start referring to "Persistently efficacious" practices. See how long it takes someone to balk at that.
I will admit to asking myself "what hogwash is this?" on seeing the phrase historian of the present.
Quote from: downer on April 30, 2021, 05:40:08 AM
I will admit to asking myself "what hogwash is this?" on seeing the phrase historian of the present.
When grading student papers, I have a stamp that says WDTM? (What Does That Mean?). I may have to start busting it out with colleagues and administrators.
Quote from: FishProf on April 29, 2021, 05:01:56 PM
In my experience, "Best Practices" just means I want to do it this way, so get it line.
When I ask for details about the sources, I am just being difficult.
I've found in my administrative work that it is helpful to get advice from colleagues and then invoke "best practices" to higher-ups and staff in following it.
Here's a way to limit the growth of the number of trendy words I don't like: cut down on the number of administrators who have to find ways to justify their job. and are good enough at it.
positionality (not in Merriam Webster's online yet)
Quote from: dismalist on February 12, 2021, 02:57:31 PM
Quote from: wareagle on February 12, 2021, 02:46:31 PM
Did anyone mention "adulting" yet?
Mercy, hadn't heard or read that one yet.
Because "adulting" means "acting like an adult", "whiting" must be next.
Sometimes the reverse happens. Instead of a noun being turned into a verb, the use of a noun/verb as a verb goes out of fashion, while the noun remains. So the 1940 song 'I'll Never Smile again' had the line 'I'll never
thrill again.' Seems hopelessly archaic now. Still in the dictionary, but seldom used.
Quote from: mahagonny on May 06, 2021, 07:52:37 AM
positionality (not in Merriam Webster's online yet)
I found myself typing it into a paper I was writing last week (and quickly brushed it away). In what I am sometimes reading it has overtaken hegemonic. (I do like Hegemony, which has a lovely sound.)
I've always found instinctual to be annoying and unnecessary. Instinctive is sufficient.
Also, it sounds like victual.
Quote from: FishProf on May 07, 2021, 09:37:04 AM
I've always found instinctual to be annoying and unnecessary. Instinctive is sufficient.
Also, it sounds like victual.
'Instittle'?
I'd like it better like that
Quote from: FishProf on May 07, 2021, 09:37:04 AM
I've always found instinctual to be annoying and unnecessary. Instinctive is sufficient.
Also, it sounds like victual.
What we eat instinctively? I can see a new diet book with that title.
<obpedant> It
looks like victual. Sounds completely different.</obpedant>
Okay, maybe not "trendy," but I hate "paradigm."
Quote from: Sauvignon Blanc on May 10, 2021, 11:21:41 AM
Okay, maybe not "trendy," but I hate "paradigm."
Anybody got change for a paradigm?
Quote from: dismalist on May 10, 2021, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: Sauvignon Blanc on May 10, 2021, 11:21:41 AM
Okay, maybe not "trendy," but I hate "paradigm."
Anybody got change for a paradigm?
Surely somebody does. After all, paradigms shift a lot. It's what they do!
cicadasial rhythms
I hate-----overusing evil, toxic, iconic, narcissist, red flags, "heart of"-- dysfunctional, hilarious, awesome, sexist, racist and ironically, the word hate itself. Billion dollar corporations are now "evil". ha ha. And everything is iconic, whatever that means.
Quote from: Hibush on May 10, 2021, 06:41:12 AM
<obpedant> It looks like victual. Sounds completely different.</obpedant>
I did not know that. I know vittles. Never knew the
victual spelling was the same.
So, thanks.
Mentee.
As in "you will all be assigned to a mentor. Mentees should be contacted by their mentor within a week."
The word they ought to use is protégé. Mentee makes it sound like you're a tiny copy or offshoot of the mentor.
"Gaslighting." I understand that it's a problem. I've had someone do it to me before. However, I get the impression that some people are starting to make accusations of "gaslighting" any time they hear any criticism or other uncongenial feedback directed at themselves.
Iterative.
Quote from: sinenomine on May 25, 2021, 09:49:51 AM
Iterative.
"Iterative" was trendy and annoying ten years ago, but for some reason, usage of the word escaped ridicule until recently.
Quote from: apl68 on May 25, 2021, 09:33:16 AM
"Gaslighting." I understand that it's a problem. I've had someone do it to me before. However, I get the impression that some people are starting to make accusations of "gaslighting" any time they hear any criticism or other uncongenial feedback directed at themselves.
This is just what happens with the usage of anything ending in "-ist" or "-phobe"; it's a preemptive dismissal of anything a person says by the implication that they are of bad moral character. (As though Harvey Weinstein saying "2+2=4" would automatically make the statement unbelievable and
unworthy of consideration of its veracity.)
Sourced!
As in: "Enjoy our full breakfast made with locally sourced ingredients".
How about just "made with local ingredients"?
Or, "I am sourcing this job...." from a temp agency email.
You're....what???....
Oh, you're recruiting for it.
Why not say that?
--------meanwhile-------
My beef du moment:
If everything's "amazing," soon nothing is "amazing."
I'm underwhelmed by the number of "amazing" things I'm being asked to attend to in online articles, at present.
-----and-----
Quote from: the_geneticist on May 25, 2021, 09:28:32 AM
Mentee.
As in "you will all be assigned to a mentor. Mentees should be contacted by their mentor within a week."
The word they ought to use is protégé. Mentee makes it sound like you're a tiny copy or offshoot of the mentor.
That word always makes me think of sea cows.
M.
"Okay, let's do this thing!" is starting to wear pretty thin on me, especially coming from people my own age (later 50's).
Meaningful.
I appreciate that that's generally a kosher word, but I began to notice its overuse a few years ago. Now I came across a college's propaganda that promised meaningful success.
Well, yeah!
Quote from: dismalist on June 13, 2021, 02:10:23 PM
Meaningful.
I appreciate that that's generally a kosher word, but I began to notice its overuse a few years ago. Now I came across a college's propaganda that promised meaningful success.
Well, yeah!
Meaningful success as opposed to a Pyrrhic victory, I guess.
Quote from: dismalist on June 13, 2021, 02:10:23 PM
Now I came across a college's propaganda that promised meaningful success.
Is there any other kind?
Quote from: dismalist on May 28, 2021, 08:56:02 PM
Sourced!
As in: "Enjoy our full breakfast made with locally sourced ingredients".
How about just "made with local ingredients"?
I'll add "clean" when used in terms of food. The people who pick your organic vegetables don't wash their hands after taking a dump in the field any more than the people who pick the non-organic veggies. The cooks in restaurants that serve "clean" food aren't much better in terms of hygiene. By all means, we should eat less processed foods, but "clean"? Really?
Quote from: fishbrains on June 15, 2021, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 28, 2021, 08:56:02 PM
Sourced!
As in: "Enjoy our full breakfast made with locally sourced ingredients".
How about just "made with local ingredients"?
I'll add "clean" when used in terms of food. The people who pick your organic vegetables don't wash their hands after taking a dump in the field any more than the people who pick the non-organic veggies. The cooks in restaurants that serve "clean" food aren't much better in terms of hygiene. By all means, we should eat less processed foods, but "clean"? Really?
Goodness, I hadn't come across that term used in conjunction with food before. Some googling yields the Mayo Clinic -- yes, the Mayo Clinic -- opining on what is best to eat: Mayo Food (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/what-does-it-mean-to-eat-clean/art-20270125/)
I think they mean for people to eat
healthy foods, or to eat
healthily. That last word clearly has one too many syllables, so
healthily becomes
clean in contemporary English. No wonder nobody in America speaks English! Like no way, duh.
QuoteI'll add "clean" when used in terms of food. The people who pick your organic vegetables don't wash their hands after taking a dump in the field any more than the people who pick the non-organic veggies. The cooks in restaurants that serve "clean" food aren't much better in terms of hygiene. By all means, we should eat less processed foods, but "clean"? Really?
Now we have influencers like Gwyneth Paltrow calling certain overpriced sunscreens "clean." As dermatologists pointed out, a good sunscreen is one with a high SPF that people apply properly.
Is there no end to her daft ideas and products (i.e., the jade vaginal egg)? I'm always happy to see doctors shut down her foolishness.
Quote from: fishbrains on June 15, 2021, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: dismalist on May 28, 2021, 08:56:02 PM
Sourced!
As in: "Enjoy our full breakfast made with locally sourced ingredients".
How about just "made with local ingredients"?
I'll add "clean" when used in terms of food. The people who pick your organic vegetables don't wash their hands after taking a dump in the field any more than the people who pick the non-organic veggies. The cooks in restaurants that serve "clean" food aren't much better in terms of hygiene. By all means, we should eat less processed foods, but "clean"? Really?
I see "clean" used even more abstractly for food. Ethically clean (not ethnically cleansed!) as in not exploiting labor and protecting the environment.
BTW, the taking a dump in the field is pretty much gone. When many farmers take a hit of tens of millions of dollars every time someone else causes an outbreak, that kind of thing stops fast. Farm portapotties have handwashing stations on the outside so everyone can see that you don't skip that step.
Here is "source" again, in a NYT article on motels: "...custom headboards and bedspreads were sourced from independent designers".
The excerpt is from the caption below the third photo in the article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/travel/motel-hotel-demand-reputation.html
I stopped reading after seeing "source" used in such a pretentious manner.
Quote from: Hibush on June 16, 2021, 03:54:21 PM
BTW, the taking a dump in the field is pretty much gone. When many farmers take a hit of tens of millions of dollars every time someone else causes an outbreak, that kind of thing stops fast. Farm portapotties have handwashing stations on the outside so everyone can see that you don't skip that step.
Good to know! I was using dated knowledge. Back in the day, we couldn't have said this.
birthing person
Quote from: Langue_doc on June 17, 2021, 06:06:04 AM
Here is "source" again, in a NYT article on motels: "...custom headboards and bedspreads were sourced from independent designers".
The excerpt is from the caption below the third photo in the article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/travel/motel-hotel-demand-reputation.html
I stopped reading after seeing "source" used in such a pretentious manner.
Sourcing is a critical part of supply chain management. Covid disruptions caused many businesses to figure out new places to get parts, component, ingredients etc. Sourcing in that context has been very much in the news. Granted, sourcing custom bedspreads sounds a lot more pretentious than sourcing the right size cardboard box.
{PC Alert.}
From CDC: Pregnant people should get vaxxed.
Quote from: Cheerful on June 18, 2021, 02:27:24 PM
From CDC: Pregnant people should get vaxxed.
And my wife, the doctor, informed me that babies no longer breast feed, they
chest feed.
Well, it's all consistent.
dismantle
No overused word like this one that highlights as well the fact that there are very few solutions, mostly tradeoffs. The idea is supposed to be 'dismantle this and build something better.' But what they propose to build often doesn't sound too promising.
ICONIC has to be the most overused word! Is there anything that is not "iconic"? Why not say famous?
Except that famously is used instead of notable or well-known. He famously said, go post a note on TheFora.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 18, 2021, 07:51:54 AM
birthing person
Is that a gender-neutral term for midwife?
Quote from: Myword on June 21, 2021, 08:21:00 AM
ICONIC has to be the most overused word! Is there anything that is not "iconic"? Why not say famous?
I think I've been using "iconic" when I mean "paradigmatic," so I am part of the problem. Sorry. Unless that's a valid use of "iconic"? Can "iconic" mean a standard example of something?
WhiteX
Quote from: downer on June 25, 2021, 08:11:00 AM
WhiteX
Is that like Latinx, so there's a gender-neutral term for white people,
which it already was?
Please tell me this isn't a thing.
WhiteY is the more commonly used term.
Quote from: Liquidambar on June 21, 2021, 08:26:57 AM
Quote from: Myword on June 21, 2021, 08:21:00 AM
ICONIC has to be the most overused word! Is there anything that is not "iconic"? Why not say famous?
I think I've been using "iconic" when I mean "paradigmatic," so I am part of the problem. Sorry. Unless that's a valid use of "iconic"? Can "iconic" mean a standard example of something?
Well, since "iconic" IS so overused, it would probably be just as well to use "paradigmatic" instead anyway. Although "paradigm" itself has gone through phases of being trendy and overused, thanks to people seizing on Thomas Kuhn's ideas.
Anybody got change for a paradigm?
Quote from: dismalist on June 25, 2021, 10:58:53 AM
Anybody got change for a paradigm?
Do you need social change for a paradigm?
'Hate on.' Says nothing that 'hate' didn't say, but takes more time.
'Mx.' I went in for my COVID test, presented my ID and the screen said 'Hello Mx Mahagonny' and then some instructions. 'Mx' is not an honorific. It's some jackass's politics. We need to start objecting to this taking over of the language.
'mostly peaceful protest' I think you already know what I'm gonna say about that one.
Quote from: mahagonny on June 27, 2021, 04:40:56 AM
'Mx.' I went in for my COVID test, presented my ID and the screen said 'Hello Mx Mahagonny' and then some instructions. 'Mx' is not an honorific. It's some jackass's politics. We need to start objecting to this taking over of the language.
'mostly peaceful protest' I think you already know what I'm gonna say about that one.
That's actually even stupider than WhiteX. Or maybe we'll get to where everyone will be referred to as simply X, whose ethnicity is X, and then we're never in danger of "mis<whatever>ing" anyone.
I've occasionally come across the term independent living facilities for the elderly. Click, click. What seems to be meant is dependent living, not to say concentration camps for the well off.
["When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."]
Long run, I don't expect the messing with definitions of words to do anything except make a bit of trouble for a while. Nothing more.
I guess they are not technical terms -- more terms created by the industry to sell products.
I've visited an independent living apartment complex for the rich, and it was very pleasant. The dining facilities were a bit tiresome -- even a dress code, and I wouldn't like to do eat there for every meal. But they would also deliver to the apartments if you wanted.
Isn't the contrast for independent living assisted living?. Then there's residential living and long term care.
The issue of how to spend one's final years is on my mind because it will take some preparation, and it can be horrible. The discomfort we have over the terminology is more about the reality of the experience. Children often can't or won't have their elderly parents living with them, and at some point, the old people have to move somewhere where help is available.
Bestie, Based, Tradnapped.
I can't stand bestie either. Are you supposed to have just one "best" friend?
Here's a word that I do like--hellmouth to describe a gaping sinkhole.
https://gothamist.com/news/early-addition-another-hellmouth-sinkhole-has-emerged
to double down
Are there that many Blackjack players?
Quote from: Langue_doc on July 18, 2021, 08:02:09 AM
I can't stand bestie either. Are you supposed to have just one "best" friend?
I think that is indeed the meaning of "best." Better than all the others. If you don't have one, that's fine, but if you do have one, "best" is the word for it. It's like "unique" — it means there's only one in that category.
While I do think that 'best' carries a conversational implicature of uniqueness, I think it's a little weaker. It seems to me that it can be equalled--perhaps because 'the best' typically denotes a class of objects rather than a particular individual (e.g. "the best knife is...").
Quote from: Hegemony on August 23, 2021, 05:17:10 PM
Quote from: Langue_doc on July 18, 2021, 08:02:09 AM
I can't stand bestie either. Are you supposed to have just one "best" friend?
I think that is indeed the meaning of "best." Better than all the others. If you don't have one, that's fine, but if you do have one, "best" is the word for it. It's like "unique" — it means there's only one in that category.
Ah,
unique! No,
most unique.
I used the word 'peformant' (exhibiting good performance) in a paper and got away with it.
It just fit in that sentence, what can I say. I'm not sure it's a real word. Then again, all words started out not real words.
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 25, 2021, 01:52:49 PM
I used the word 'peformant' (exhibiting good performance) in a paper and got away with it.
It just fit in that sentence, what can I say. I'm not sure it's a real word. Then again, all words started out not real words.
It is a word!
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/performant (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/performant)
Apparently, it wasn't 10 years ago.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38945/what-is-wrong-with-the-word-performant (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38945/what-is-wrong-with-the-word-performant)
Perhaps jargon now. Still, what's not to like?
Quote from: dismalist on August 25, 2021, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 25, 2021, 01:52:49 PM
I used the word 'peformant' (exhibiting good performance) in a paper and got away with it.
It just fit in that sentence, what can I say. I'm not sure it's a real word. Then again, all words started out not real words.
It is a word!
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/performant (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/performant)
Apparently, it wasn't 10 years ago.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38945/what-is-wrong-with-the-word-performant (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38945/what-is-wrong-with-the-word-performant)
Perhaps jargon now. Still, what's not to like?
Well now I feel vindicated. One of the reviewers wanted it gone but I persisted. Let's hear it for words!
Verticals. Iterative. Both are go-to terms for administration at my place of work.
"Excused" as a magic word that makes coursework somehow disappear.
As in "since a COVID quarantine absence is 'excused,' I've done nothing in the class for 10 days, including taking 30 seconds to send an email. What should I do now?" or "Since these are 'excused' absences, be sure to work with students."
It's hard to work with students who ain't there in any capacity. Grrrrrrr . . .
A post on the "favorite student emails" thread reminded me of "I'm confused".
"I'm confused" used to be a confession that one was, well, confused. Nowadays, it is used as an accusation, in the sense of "you have caused me to be confused". How did that happen and why?
Quote from: dismalist on August 31, 2021, 05:14:46 PM
A post on the "favorite student emails" thread reminded me of "I'm confused".
"I'm confused" used to be a confession that one was, well, confused. Nowadays, it is used as an accusation, in the sense of "you have caused me to be confused". How did that happen and why?
Sorry, that was me. I phrased my comments to visiting speakers as "I'm confused. You said X but then you said Y, but X implies not-Y." It seemed politer than "You are taking nonsense."
Quote from: sinenomine on August 26, 2021, 12:40:07 PM
Verticals. Iterative. Both are go-to terms for administration at my place of work.
I've been thinking about this for a while. What other word(s) would you use to describe a process that goes through many cycles to improve and/or get closer to the final solution? So far I haven't thought of any. (Having done lots of programming, it's a really familiar word in that context.)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 23, 2021, 05:27:09 PM
While I do think that 'best' carries a conversational implicature of uniqueness, I think it's a little weaker. It seems to me that it can be equalled--perhaps because 'the best' typically denotes a class of objects rather than a particular individual (e.g. "the best knife is...").
The truth in advertising rules (probably gone now) held that a claim of "better" required objective evidence, whereas "Best" was subjective. Therefore it was ok to advertise that you are selling the best knife, but not practical to advertise that it was better in some way.
Quote from: downer on September 01, 2021, 04:19:18 AM
Quote from: dismalist on August 31, 2021, 05:14:46 PM
A post on the "favorite student emails" thread reminded me of "I'm confused".
"I'm confused" used to be a confession that one was, well, confused. Nowadays, it is used as an accusation, in the sense of "you have caused me to be confused". How did that happen and why?
Sorry, that was me. I phrased my comments to visiting speakers as "I'm confused. You said X but then you said Y, but X implies not-Y." It seemed politer than "You are taking nonsense."
Nothing to be sorry about. I suppose trying to be polite does explain some of the usage, except that ITRW the tone in which "I'm confused" is said amounts to an attack.
My husband uses 'I was surprised (to hear) that . . .' in a similar way. It means, in his mouth, 'I thought you were great, but then you did/said this thing that is not great, which surprised and disappointed me, who expected better.'
I don't think he realizes that this is what he means when he says it. I think he thinks he was genuinely surprised by the event. But somehow he only ever says 'I was surprised' about bad things (surprise dishes, surprise errands), not good things (surprise cake, surprise presents). Drives me nuts.
"mandate".
I really can't use this word much anymore in any context. Not in the U.S., anyway. It's too tied into the over-politicization of the covid pandemic.
Plural of collective nouns to end with "s".
Behavior, as written, is many, but uncountable. Behaviors is supposed to be countable. It used to be that "behavior" was sufficient, but "behaviors" seems to be taking over. And there are other words like that. Googling around, I learned that "behaviors" is a term in psychology, social science, and education. Is that true? If so, why not use "behavior"?
Drives me up the wall. :-)
Behaviour is collective (as in the totality of what an animal does), but behaviors is a pluralization of specific things.
Mating behavior covers the whole shebang, but mating behaviors refers to the individual aspects (courting, grooming, mate guarding, nest clearing, etc etc).
Note - yes I know I switched British/American spelling along the way above. It is one of my pernicious behaviors.
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:57:34 AM
Behaviour is collective (as in the totality of what an animal does), but behaviors is a pluralization of specific things.
Mating behavior covers the whole shebang, but mating behaviors refers to the individual aspects (courting, grooming, mate guarding, nest clearing, etc etc).
Note - yes I know I switched British/American spelling along the way above. It is one of my pernicious behaviors.
Yeah, I got the definition. It's the apparent increase in one usage rather than the other that irritated me.
Anyway, checking Ngram, use of the word behavior was always there but peaked before 1980 and has declined a tad since then. Use of the word behaviors is a logistic beginning about 1920 and exploding from 1960. Seems to have peaked right about the present.
I was wondering why.
"Orwellian."
I think even George would say, "Enough, now" at this point.
"Robust" has to die. In all forms and in all contexts.
Quote from: dismalist on October 05, 2021, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: FishProf on October 05, 2021, 06:57:34 AM
Behaviour is collective (as in the totality of what an animal does), but behaviors is a pluralization of specific things.
Mating behavior covers the whole shebang, but mating behaviors refers to the individual aspects (courting, grooming, mate guarding, nest clearing, etc etc).
Note - yes I know I switched British/American spelling along the way above. It is one of my pernicious behaviors.
Yeah, I got the definition. It's the apparent increase in one usage rather than the other that irritated me.
Anyway, checking Ngram, use of the word behavior was always there but peaked before 1980 and has declined a tad since then. Use of the word behaviors is a logistic beginning about 1920 and exploding from 1960. Seems to have peaked right about the present.
I was wondering why.
Like many trendy things it has become the norm?
Quote from: fishbrains on October 06, 2021, 09:24:25 AM
"Robust" has to die. In all forms and in all contexts.
How am I going to describe my preferred olive oil?
Quote from: fishbrains on October 06, 2021, 09:24:25 AM
"Robust" has to die. In all forms and in all contexts.
Not for statistics! That meaning is clear and useful. I'm with you in spirit otherwise, and would like to say the same about "nimble".
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 06, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: fishbrains on October 06, 2021, 09:24:25 AM
"Robust" has to die. In all forms and in all contexts.
Not for statistics! That meaning is clear and useful. I'm with you in spirit otherwise, and would like to say the same about "nimble".
Well, we can't get poor Jack over that candlestick without it.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 06, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: fishbrains on October 06, 2021, 09:24:25 AM
"Robust" has to die. In all forms and in all contexts.
Not for statistics! That meaning is clear and useful. I'm with you in spirit otherwise, and would like to say the same about "nimble".
Interesting. My new toy, Ngram, reveals that "robust" really took off around 1980. "Nimble" did as well, but with a much less steep rise, and that after a long decline. Fulfilling my dream of turning the clock back on speech use would not help.
Quote from: fishbrains on October 06, 2021, 09:24:25 AM
"Robust" has to die. In all forms and in all contexts.
Good luck killing that one off. Given that it's so...well, you know.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 06, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: fishbrains on October 06, 2021, 09:24:25 AM
"Robust" has to die. In all forms and in all contexts.
Not for statistics! That meaning is clear and useful. I'm with you in spirit otherwise, and would like to say the same about "nimble".
Okay, but please use it behind closed doors, and never around administrators.
But you know, a preacher one day used it of the Holy Spirit, which delighted me.
A nimble spirit, one that gets around and sees to things, isn't bound by the stuff that gets us down...or not in the same way.
Still makes me smile.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on October 06, 2021, 01:05:10 PM
But you know, a preacher one day used it of the Holy Spirit, which delighted me.
A nimble spirit, one that gets around and sees to things, isn't bound by the stuff that gets us down...or not in the same way.
Still makes me smile. As fishbrains noted, admin not so much.
M.
Preacher, fine. As
Quote from: little bongo on October 06, 2021, 09:14:10 AM
"Orwellian."
I think even George would say, "Enough, now" at this point.
Are you even serious? I couldn't possibly disagree more. It's been a few years, but you know, when I read 'Animal Farm' it struck me as deadly serious. Unless my English teacher was dead wrong that is. Not only that, but the failure of the populace, including the well educated (looking at you, bongo) to understand that no one can be exempt from reasonable suspicion enabled the whole mess.
Well, we can both speculate on what he would say about today. It's fun.
Yes, but you've got Weill's dystopian moniker in the race, so it's not quite a fair fight.
M.
I'll change it then. What would you like me to be called?
Quote from: little bongo on October 06, 2021, 09:14:10 AM
"Orwellian."
I think even George would say, "Enough, now" at this point.
There has indeed been an explosion in use of "orwellian". I noticed it myself and it can be verified with Ngram. This word jarred my thoughts on why I am so interested in trendy words. I
like "orwellian"! I'm guessing that someone who is less enthusiastic than I am about the word will also be less enthusiastic about my political views. I'm further guessing that the use of many of the words discussed on this thread are used most frequently by identifiable groups of people. Some words are like badges.
There is a tragic story recounted by Arthur Koestler of a young communist woman, who was interrogated by the Gestapo. The head man was just about to let her go, thinking his underlings had been overly zealous. Then, in answer to a question, the woman uttered a sentence containing the word "concrete". The head man's ears pricked up. At the time the word "concrete" was pretty much restricted in use to communist circles. He asked her where she had picked up the word, she got flustered and confessed to whatever she was accused of.
Not all the words discussed here will have such serious implications. Some of them would only force one to confess that one had gone to B-school or that one is an administrator! :-)
Well it's been half a day waiting already. I guess I won't be getting a new name. [sigh]
allyship
social justice
The person using this term these days all too often thinks that his idea of justice is the correct one and the person who disagrees with his terms under which justice would be accomplished is evil. Instead of reality, which is that each individual has his or her idea of what justice should look like, and we all ought to be able to remember that.
I think this used to be called liberalism. The ability to remember that you are just one citizen and one mind who lives in a free society.
One of my provosts has announced that the diversity staff or some groovy people, I forget exactly who, are soon going to make curriculum recommendations (changes) to reflect social justice concerns.
He doesn't get it.
Now that I use ngram, I have discovered that use of most [well, many] words I don't like really took off in or just after 1980.
Why might that be?
Quote from: dismalist on October 09, 2021, 04:47:21 PM
Now that I use ngram, I have discovered that use of most [well, many] words I don't like really took off in or just after 1980.
Why might that be?
Well, maybe 'advocate' is an annoying ngram, but only when it's part of 'advocate for' which is a bigram...?
QuoteThere has indeed been an explosion in use of "orwellian". I noticed it myself and it can be verified with Ngram. This word jarred my thoughts on why I am so interested in trendy words. I like "orwellian"! I'm guessing that someone who is less enthusiastic than I am about the word will also be less enthusiastic about my political views. I'm further guessing that the use of many of the words discussed on this thread are used most frequently by identifiable groups of people. Some words are like badges.
Increasingly, we just annoy each other, sorted by tribes, and the words (badges) show which tribe you're a member of. The tribe that hates the term 'systemic racism' squares off against the tribe that hates the term 'virtue signaling' and they spot each other instantly through their diction.
It's even worse in the media. This article in the New Yorker makes a point of showing its antipathy, dismissive attitude for the parents, while playing dumb (barely bothering to hide their antipathy). It's snide through and through. I find it bone chilling. They wouldn't have written that way in the nineties. I admit being on the side of the parents. But something has shifted. That's the point.
https://outline.com/stat1k/kDF9S5.html
Mahagonny is right about no one being exempt from suspicion. It's true about any system of rules and trying to sort out right and wrong. And yes, I sometimes wonder if some random thing I say in class could become some kind of viral meme with disastrous consequences. But I take what I like about what woke folks say, and I leave the rest behind. And I'm always inspired by something Dr. Sidney Friedman said to Col. Potter on M*A*S*H*-- "Don't let your fear make the decision for you."
Also, I have three suggestions for renaming Mahagonny:
1) Studhoss
2) Skeezix
3) Ecdysiast
Although if he's done a GCF, I guess it's moot.
Quote from: little bongo on October 10, 2021, 08:32:52 PM
Mahagonny is right about no one being exempt from suspicion. It's true about any system of rules and trying to sort out right and wrong. And yes, I sometimes wonder if some random thing I say in class could become some kind of viral meme with disastrous consequences. But I take what I like about what woke folks say, and I leave the rest behind. And I'm always inspired by something Dr. Sidney Friedman said to Col. Potter on M*A*S*H*-- "Don't let your fear make the decision for you."
Also, I have three suggestions for renaming Mahagonny:
1) Studhoss
2) Skeezix
3) Ecdysiast
Although if he's done a GCF, I guess it's moot.
Please don't use "Skeezix!" Somebody very dear to me has sometimes used that nickname for me, and I'd hate to have...other associations added to it.
bespoke
TikTok.
Quote from: Aster on October 11, 2021, 05:20:06 PM
TikTok.
This reminds me that I am still not a fan of
tweet.
Quote from: cascade on October 12, 2021, 04:57:18 AM
Quote from: Aster on October 11, 2021, 05:20:06 PM
TikTok.
This reminds me that I am still not a fan of tweet.
How about tweeps? A portmanteau of twitter and peeps (aka people).
You mean those little marshmallow chickies, but colored blue?
https://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-new-blue-peeps-easter-walmart-20140416-story.html
They've been around for a little while, now...
;--}
M.
My wife has very strong opinions regarding Peeps (that is, the marshmallow chicks):
1) They must be chicks--other animals and shapes do not count.
2) They must be the kind you get at Easter--Halloween and Christmas Peeps do not count.
3) They must be yellow--other colors won't fly.
Peeps! Multicolored Styrofoam with sugar added!
Ah, time to post the annual Peeps lab page...a.k.a. "How to torture a Peep and set off your smoke detector in one easy try..."
http://www.peepresearch.org/
M.
Yikes!
My dear peeps (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=peeps): Peeps are Easter candy, not Halloween candy. You are crazy yearning for them now.
Oh, but the Peeps marketing people want you to believe they're a year-round delight, now all those different animals and colors and dioramas exist...
M.
Gaslighting. Great origin story, meaning should be understood. Now thrown out there almost every time there is a difference of opinion.
Brainwashed.
Not sure if it qualifies as trending, but I hear it a lot when used to describe people with opinions different from the speaker (especially political or religious).
It's annoying in that it implies an utter lack of agency on the part of the people with the differing view. If you think someone is wrong, you might say they are misinformed or misguided or are using flawed reasoning or any number of things, but a lot of people go for "brainwashing" (or "indoctrinated" - another overused word).
It's a companion sentiment to "Nobody who's given the matter any thought would believe that." or "Anyone with half a brain knows..." or similar. It's a refusal to acknowledge even the possibility that an intelligent person has given the matter some thought and still come to a different conclusion than you.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on October 23, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Brainwashed.
Not sure if it qualifies as trending, but I hear it a lot when used to describe people with opinions different from the speaker (especially political or religious).
It's annoying in that it implies an utter lack of agency on the part of the people with the differing view. If you think someone is wrong, you might say they are misinformed or misguided or are using flawed reasoning or any number of things, but a lot of people go for "brainwashing" (or "indoctrinated" - another overused word).
It's a companion sentiment to "Nobody who's given the matter any thought would believe that." or "Anyone with half a brain knows..." or similar. It's a refusal to acknowledge even the possibility that an intelligent person has given the matter some thought and still come to a different conclusion than you.
Similarly "internalized", as in "internalized misogyny" or "internalized racism", as though any members of any identity group must all have the same opinions unless they have been manipulated into thinking otherwise. (Which of course implies that the manipulators are therefore obviously more powerful for being able to do so.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 24, 2021, 06:06:25 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on October 23, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Brainwashed.
Not sure if it qualifies as trending, but I hear it a lot when used to describe people with opinions different from the speaker (especially political or religious).
It's annoying in that it implies an utter lack of agency on the part of the people with the differing view. If you think someone is wrong, you might say they are misinformed or misguided or are using flawed reasoning or any number of things, but a lot of people go for "brainwashing" (or "indoctrinated" - another overused word).
It's a companion sentiment to "Nobody who's given the matter any thought would believe that." or "Anyone with half a brain knows..." or similar. It's a refusal to acknowledge even the possibility that an intelligent person has given the matter some thought and still come to a different conclusion than you.
Similarly "internalized", as in "internalized misogyny" or "internalized racism", as though any members of any identity group must all have the same opinions unless they have been manipulated into thinking otherwise. (Which of course implies that the manipulators are therefore obviously more powerful for being able to do so.)
Agree with you both somewhat, but will nitpick a little. Indoctrination is clearly on the upswing, for example, to employees of CVS, whose CEO who makes a gazillion per year in salary recently hired ibrahim Kendi to speak to their $30,000/year salaried employees (for a modest fee of something like $20K/hour).
the sermon starts out with the assertion 'there is anti-black racism and white supremacy everywhere, suppressing people of color and preventing them form having productive fulfilling lives.' The sermon skips over the normal thought process prompted by the claim, namely,
what is the evidence? And goes straight to 'what are we going to do about this?' And what they are going to do is change how you think and feel. And you are required to acknowledge, with words and presence, and probably even changes in workplace habits of interaction, your submission to this process.
So the speaker is proceeding as though you have chosen him and his wisdom for your last-word-on-everything moral authority. And by doing so you earn your place in the new ultra-enlightened community, i.e. 'anti-racism living' or 'allyship.' This explains why no evidence was given and none was even asked for, the pressures, the in-group acceptance, the 'othering' of people with views that differ. That's indoctrination by any definition.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 24, 2021, 06:21:20 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 24, 2021, 06:06:25 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on October 23, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Brainwashed.
Not sure if it qualifies as trending, but I hear it a lot when used to describe people with opinions different from the speaker (especially political or religious).
It's annoying in that it implies an utter lack of agency on the part of the people with the differing view. If you think someone is wrong, you might say they are misinformed or misguided or are using flawed reasoning or any number of things, but a lot of people go for "brainwashing" (or "indoctrinated" - another overused word).
It's a companion sentiment to "Nobody who's given the matter any thought would believe that." or "Anyone with half a brain knows..." or similar. It's a refusal to acknowledge even the possibility that an intelligent person has given the matter some thought and still come to a different conclusion than you.
Similarly "internalized", as in "internalized misogyny" or "internalized racism", as though any members of any identity group must all have the same opinions unless they have been manipulated into thinking otherwise. (Which of course implies that the manipulators are therefore obviously more powerful for being able to do so.)
Agree with you both somewhat, but will nitpick a little. Indoctrination is clearly on the upswing, for example, to employees of CVS, whose CEO who makes a gazillion per year in salary recently hired ibrahim Kendi to speak to their $30,000/year salaried employees (for a modest fee of something like $20K/hour).
the sermon starts out with the assertion 'there is anti-black racism and white supremacy everywhere, suppressing people of color and preventing them form having productive fulfilling lives.' The sermon skips over the normal thought process prompted by the claim, namely, what is the evidence? And goes straight to 'what are we going to do about this?' And what they are going to do is change how you think and feel. And you are required to acknowledge, with words and presence, and probably even changes in workplace habits of interaction, your submission to this process.
So the speaker is proceeding as though you have chosen him and his wisdom for your last-word-on-everything moral authority. And by doing so you earn your place in the new ultra-enlightened community, i.e. 'anti-racism living' or 'allyship.' This explains why no evidence was given and none was even asked for, the pressures, the in-group acceptance, the 'othering' of people with views that differ. That's indoctrination by any definition.
Interesting point.
So here's a question I'd be curious to hear people weigh in on.
Whatever side of the vaccine debate you're on, "pro-" or "anti-", do you view the people on the
other side as having been "brainwashed", or do you view them as having made independent (even if possibly misguided or ill-informed) decisions?
I'm not really on a side, so much, but I'll take a stab at the question.
If we substitute the term 'coercion' for 'brainwashing/indoctrination' I guess I was coerced to get the vaccination, by my employer. True, I could quit and look for another job, but that would be a lot of trouble. So I guess it has been a bait-and-switch situation. However I would probably have gotten the vaccination anyway. If someone felt very uncomfortable about the requirement and had to quit as a result, I would feel a lot of sympathy (though I probably wouldn't march in protest.)
What we were not required to do, however, was express a belief that getting double-vaccinated is the only moral choice, and only a person who was bad, morally, would refuse to. So I answer no, that wasn't brainwashing or indoctrination. It did not require us to identify ourselves with a moral belief. However, if our diversity staff get their way, their seminars will be required of all faculty and will do exactly that. Which would hurt me much more than getting a shot in my arm that I think represents a minor health risk or a waste of time.
I have been told that giving lip service to a policy you abhor is no big deal. I disagree in the case of the 'anti-racism' brigade. You don't lip service to things as serious as these. You either agree or say you don't. Doing anything other than that is bad for the spirit.
If I ran a business (or a college) and hired employees I would prefer not to require vaccinations. I would prefer to respect their choices. But if meant the end of the business otherwise, I'd probably fall in line.
"Digital natives" when referring to our students' ability to use hardware and software. Most of them are helpless when even just a small problem arises.
Sorry if this one has been mentioned before.
Quote from: fishbrains on October 27, 2021, 03:47:57 AM
"Digital natives" when referring to our students' ability to use hardware and software. Most of them are helpless when even just a small problem arises.
Sorry if this one has been mentioned before.
Maybe the original phrase was misheard, and the second "t" doesn't belong there. That would explain a lot.
There was talk on social media recently about college students not seeming to understand file structures. I guess they are just using to passively saving files and photos to some big dump area and not setting up folders pertaining to different projects, and so forth. Newer technology and capacity means that they can just search for whatever they need in that big general space. I don't know how widespread this is, but it is interesting to think about.
Quote from: fishbrains on October 27, 2021, 03:47:57 AM
"Digital natives" when referring to our students' ability to use hardware and software. Most of them are helpless when even just a small problem arises.
I've learned to swap in "
digital zombies" instead.
Quote from: ab_grp on October 27, 2021, 09:16:46 AM
There was talk on social media recently about college students not seeming to understand file structures. I guess they are just using to passively saving files and photos to some big dump area and not setting up folders pertaining to different projects, and so forth. Newer technology and capacity means that they can just search for whatever they need in that big general space. I don't know how widespread this is, but it is interesting to think about.
This might explain how some of my colleagues use Google drive.
Quote from: Harlow2 on October 28, 2021, 08:01:23 PM
Quote from: ab_grp on October 27, 2021, 09:16:46 AM
There was talk on social media recently about college students not seeming to understand file structures. I guess they are just using to passively saving files and photos to some big dump area and not setting up folders pertaining to different projects, and so forth. Newer technology and capacity means that they can just search for whatever they need in that big general space. I don't know how widespread this is, but it is interesting to think about.
This might explain how some of my colleagues use Google drive.
File systems are now a Dark Art (https://xkcd.com/2531/). xkcd
Quote from: Hibush on October 29, 2021, 09:23:24 PM
Quote from: Harlow2 on October 28, 2021, 08:01:23 PM
Quote from: ab_grp on October 27, 2021, 09:16:46 AM
There was talk on social media recently about college students not seeming to understand file structures. I guess they are just using to passively saving files and photos to some big dump area and not setting up folders pertaining to different projects, and so forth. Newer technology and capacity means that they can just search for whatever they need in that big general space. I don't know how widespread this is, but it is interesting to think about.
This might explain how some of my colleagues use Google drive.
File systems are now a Dark Art (https://xkcd.com/2531/). xkcd
Ha! I guess that explains it!
Student writes on RMP "Arguably, he is my favorite professor at this school."
Who is there to argue with?
'blame on'
Just say 'blame,' please. It's correct and it saves time.
'inclusive'
Because it means aligned with left wing politics, orthodoxy, which means exclusive.
Recently saw someone describe their applied research department's work as "user-obsessed," which just sounds creepy to me.
'Cocktail.' Used to mean 'combination' of just about anything. I don't want to hear anyone mention cocktails unless they're serious.
word salad
Insensitive to persons who have schizophrenia. They can't stop their disorganized thinking. Speaking and writing that we think is poorly constructed is something that legitimately invites critique, but not terms that should stay peculiar to a field.
Now, how about a round of applause for my compassion.
Real-world as an adjective. The referent is becoming increasingly unclear as per Meta.
Quote from: Harlow2 on January 31, 2022, 05:59:36 AM
Real-world as an adjective. The referent is becoming increasingly unclear as per Meta.
In fairness, it DOES seem like it's getting harder to tell what's "real world" and what's "meta" apart anymore.
Quote from: apl68 on January 31, 2022, 07:35:55 AM
Quote from: Harlow2 on January 31, 2022, 05:59:36 AM
Real-world as an adjective. The referent is becoming increasingly unclear as per Meta.
In fairness, it DOES seem like it's getting harder to tell what's "real world" and what's "meta" apart anymore.
I kind of like the alternative term 'meat-space.'
ICONIC is there anything that is not?
HEARTLAND
JOY
HERO
PHENOMENOLOGICAL misused always
Quote from: Myword on February 06, 2022, 10:15:50 AM
PHENOMENOLOGICAL misused always
Maybe I should stop using this one. It has a specific meaning in my subfield, so I use it to communicate something in a precise way, but meanings in other fields seem to be all over the place.
Quote from: Myword on February 06, 2022, 10:15:50 AM
PHENOMENOLOGICAL misused always
Out of curiosity, misused how? Perhaps my problem is I have read a lot of Husserl and Heidegger. Although I've also read a lot of Peirce, for whom "icon" has a specific technical meaning, and I can certainly see how "iconic" is used for hyperbolic purposes.
reimagine
A relative newbie: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=reimagine&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Creimagine%3B%2Cc0
Let's reimagine what--- reality?
Pure BS. Not even wrong.
That's a John Lennon song, remixed
Quote from: mahagonny on February 06, 2022, 03:35:27 PM
That's a John Lennon song, remixed
Ah, yes, '68 generation. Thought as much.
Quote from: Liquidambar on February 06, 2022, 11:28:47 AM
Quote from: Myword on February 06, 2022, 10:15:50 AM
PHENOMENOLOGICAL misused always
Maybe I should stop using this one. It has a specific meaning in my subfield, so I use it to communicate something in a precise way, but meanings in other fields seem to be all over the place.
Quote from: traductio on February 06, 2022, 11:59:27 AM
Quote from: Myword on February 06, 2022, 10:15:50 AM
PHENOMENOLOGICAL misused always
Out of curiosity, misused how? Perhaps my problem is I have read a lot of Husserl and Heidegger. Although I've also read a lot of Peirce, for whom "icon" has a specific technical meaning, and I can certainly see how "iconic" is used for hyperbolic purposes.
Analytics just use it to mean sense-impressions. I think that's the misuse Myword has in mind, rather than the Husserlian (/Hegelian) sense pertaining to the structure of consciousness.
If so, then I'm guilty as charged.
Can I add secret/secrete confusion to the list? I like the words, but their constant conflation is driving me nuts.
Phenomenological is from phenomenology of course. No problem.
Now it is used in psychology and other subjects to mean "description" or "observational" or "experiential" Because the authors want to appear smarter, I assume. Such is how so many technical terms end up changed by the public and other academic subjects. Ontology has many meanings outside of philosophy.
reset
'pregnant people' 'birthing people'
'why are we letting language be redesigned by a tiny minority?'
Piers Morgan asks, politely and reasonably:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDShwIQSawM
Another example of how the militant left ruins everything. Or tries to.
narrative
Use has exploded since 1960
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0)
It means attributing any meaning one wants to a circumstance or set of circumstances. Thus, we could have any number of narratives for the same sets of facts.
Narratives are like hypotheses. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. All or most survive because there is too little at stake for most people.
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 11:47:56 AM
narrative
Use has exploded since 1960
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0)
It means attributing any meaning one wants to a circumstance or set of circumstances. Thus, we could have any number of narratives for the same sets of facts.
Narratives are like hypotheses. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. All or most survive because there is too little at stake for most people.
The explosion in the use of the word "narrative" seems highly
problematic (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=problematic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0) (another annoying trendy word), though the po-mos tell us that there are no objective facts.
Quote from: Anon1787 on April 24, 2022, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 11:47:56 AM
narrative
Use has exploded since 1960
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0)
It means attributing any meaning one wants to a circumstance or set of circumstances. Thus, we could have any number of narratives for the same sets of facts.
Narratives are like hypotheses. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. All or most survive because there is too little at stake for most people.
The explosion in the use of the word "narrative" seems highly problematic (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=problematic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0) (another annoying trendy word), though the po-mos tell us that there are no objective facts.
Mercy! And the explosion in use started around the same time. It's that '68 generation! We didn't invent post-modernism, but we ate it up [except for me.]
Problematic and
narrative have in common that they are words that needn't describe something correct, or necessary to test, or even testable. Could describe anything, really.
As for objective facts, reminds me of Sokal: Come up to my 25th story apartment, jump off the balcony, and let me know if there are objective facts or not.
ETA: Sokal.
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on April 24, 2022, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 11:47:56 AM
narrative
Use has exploded since 1960
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0)
It means attributing any meaning one wants to a circumstance or set of circumstances. Thus, we could have any number of narratives for the same sets of facts.
Narratives are like hypotheses. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. All or most survive because there is too little at stake for most people.
The explosion in the use of the word "narrative" seems highly problematic (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=problematic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0) (another annoying trendy word), though the po-mos tell us that there are no objective facts.
Mercy! And the explosion in use started around the same time. It's that '68 generation!
Problematic and narrative have in common that they are words that needn't describe something correct or necessary to test or even testable. Could describe anything, really.
Story also took off after 1980, but
evidence has gone down, especially since 2000. The trend is sad but clear.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 24, 2022, 01:41:35 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on April 24, 2022, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 11:47:56 AM
narrative
Use has exploded since 1960
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0)
It means attributing any meaning one wants to a circumstance or set of circumstances. Thus, we could have any number of narratives for the same sets of facts.
Narratives are like hypotheses. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. All or most survive because there is too little at stake for most people.
The explosion in the use of the word "narrative" seems highly problematic (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=problematic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0) (another annoying trendy word), though the po-mos tell us that there are no objective facts.
Mercy! And the explosion in use started around the same time. It's that '68 generation!
Problematic and narrative have in common that they are words that needn't describe something correct or necessary to test or even testable. Could describe anything, really.
Story also took off after 1980, but evidence has gone down, especially since 2000. The trend is sad but clear.
Evidence might disturb the
narrative, which could be
problematic for the credibility of the
story.
Moreover, gathering
evidence requires
work, a word in decline since the 1920's.
ETA: Original quote.
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 24, 2022, 01:41:35 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on April 24, 2022, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 11:47:56 AM
narrative
Use has exploded since 1960
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0)
It means attributing any meaning one wants to a circumstance or set of circumstances. Thus, we could have any number of narratives for the same sets of facts.
Narratives are like hypotheses. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. All or most survive because there is too little at stake for most people.
The explosion in the use of the word "narrative" seems highly problematic (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=problematic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0) (another annoying trendy word), though the po-mos tell us that there are no objective facts.
Mercy! And the explosion in use started around the same time. It's that '68 generation!
Problematic and narrative have in common that they are words that needn't describe something correct or necessary to test or even testable. Could describe anything, really.
Story also took off after 1980, but evidence has gone down, especially since 2000. The trend is sad but clear.
Evidence might disturb the narrative, which could be problematic for the credibility of the story.
Moreover, gathering evidence requires work, a word in decline since the 1920's.
Objective has also been fallling since 1980.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 24, 2022, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 24, 2022, 01:41:35 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on April 24, 2022, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 11:47:56 AM
narrative
Use has exploded since 1960
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=narrative&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cnarrative%3B%2Cc0)
It means attributing any meaning one wants to a circumstance or set of circumstances. Thus, we could have any number of narratives for the same sets of facts.
Narratives are like hypotheses. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. All or most survive because there is too little at stake for most people.
The explosion in the use of the word "narrative" seems highly problematic (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=problematic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cproblematic%3B%2Cc0) (another annoying trendy word), though the po-mos tell us that there are no objective facts.
Mercy! And the explosion in use started around the same time. It's that '68 generation!
Problematic and narrative have in common that they are words that needn't describe something correct or necessary to test or even testable. Could describe anything, really.
Story also took off after 1980, but evidence has gone down, especially since 2000. The trend is sad but clear.
Evidence might disturb the narrative, which could be problematic for the credibility of the story.
Moreover, gathering evidence requires work, a word in decline since the 1920's.
Objective has also been fallling since 1980.
Well, yeah. Since then it's become increasingly recognized that there are no
objective facts, just
socially constructed facts.
As Sokal said, come to my 25th story apartment, jump off the balconey, and tell me about socially constructed facts.
Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2022, 02:38:15 PM
Well, yeah. Since then it's become increasingly recognized that there are no objective facts, just socially constructed facts.
As Sokal said, come to my 25th story apartment, jump off the balconey, and tell me about socially constructed facts.
A newspaper article I read today used "fact" as a synonym for "assertion", in a sentence making the point that the assertion was false and without basis. Is "
fact" even a social contruct now?
In the past month I talked to two different recruiters about jobs and they both said that they wanted to be transparent with me. Is this a new thing in corporate speak?
Quote from: Anselm on April 24, 2022, 07:12:30 PM
In the past month I talked to two different recruiters about jobs and they both said that they wanted to be transparent with me. Is this a new thing in corporate speak?
I love it! Don't mind my
transparently self interested behavior. If you do, I'll
Quotehold you accountable
.
My guess is that some communications specialist invents such terms and they spread through corporations so long as they sound nice and are meaningless. Let me know how you feel
in terms of our
core competencies.
Quote from: Anselm on April 24, 2022, 07:12:30 PM
In the past month I talked to two different recruiters about jobs and they both said that they wanted to be transparent with me. Is this a new thing in corporate speak?
Does that mean they will tell you the actual salary?
Quote from: the_geneticist on April 25, 2022, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 24, 2022, 07:12:30 PM
In the past month I talked to two different recruiters about jobs and they both said that they wanted to be transparent with me. Is this a new thing in corporate speak?
Does that mean they will tell you the actual salary?
The discussion had to do with timelines and how they needed someone ASAP.
Where have you guys been?
Those terms have been used in corporate and academic settings in the way you're describing for at least 10-15 years that I know of.
M.
Sorry that I haven't read the whole thread yet; I just found it. I would have to add a lot of the terms that admin seems currently fond of: leverage, impact (unless used as something hitting something else), on-boarding (are we getting on a boat?), learner instead of student, etc. Then there are the nouns used as verbs: adulting, etc. Those make me cringe.
My next edition of buzzword bingo will have lots of options.
Quote from: dr_evil on April 25, 2022, 02:19:27 PM
Sorry that I haven't read the whole thread yet; I just found it. I would have to add a lot of the terms that admin seems currently fond of: leverage, impact (unless used as something hitting something else), on-boarding (are we getting on a boat?), learner instead of student, etc. Then there are the nouns used as verbs: adulting, etc. Those make me cringe.
My next edition of buzzword bingo will have lots of options.
I think some of them don't realize the Educational Jargon Generator https://www.sciencegeek.net/lingo.html (https://www.sciencegeek.net/lingo.html)is tongue-in-cheek site.
Edited to add: I think this gem sums up our curriculum redesigning committee
"We will problematize literature-based learning styles through cognitive disequilibrium."
Quote from: the_geneticist on April 25, 2022, 04:52:03 PM
I think some of them don't realize the Educational Jargon Generator https://www.sciencegeek.net/lingo.html (https://www.sciencegeek.net/lingo.html)is tongue-in-cheek site.
Edited to add: I think this gem sums up our curriculum redesigning committee
"We will problematize literature-based learning styles through cognitive disequilibrium."
Oh, that site is perfect. "Disequilibrium"? Ouch, my brain is screaming in terror. Equilibrium means a real thing to me in Evil Science.
And I have actually found a site to create a selection of Buzzword Bingo cards. I'm all set for my next faculty meeting.
Quote from: dr_evil on April 25, 2022, 02:19:27 PM
Sorry that I haven't read the whole thread yet; I just found it. I would have to add a lot of the terms that admin seems currently fond of: leverage, impact (unless used as something hitting something else), on-boarding (are we getting on a boat?), learner instead of student, etc. Then there are the nouns used as verbs: adulting, etc. Those make me cringe.
When my daughter started working for a high tech company, and talked of "on-boarding" new *employees, my mind always jumped to
water-boarding, and I can't get that sort of image out of my head.
(* or new clients)
Let's see, 'on-boarding' came in with SAP/Oracle's Peoplesoft in, hmm...well, by 2005, anyway, when I was working at a place that used those things.
I'd say it had been in use at least 5 years before, because we had a second- or third-generation version of the software by then.
M.