News:

Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!

Main Menu

Trendy Words I Do Not Like

Started by Cheerful, September 09, 2020, 02:57:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

fourhats

Gifted, as in a present, like "I was gifted a new sweater." I'd prefer, "she gave me a new sweater."

apl68

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.
And you will cry out on that day because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you on that day.

jimbogumbo

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!

permanent imposter

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.)

ergative

Transitive 'grow' when applied to social constructs. Growing crystals is great. Growing tomatoes is lovely. Growing your business or your subscriber base is awful.

mahagonny

#50
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.

apl68

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.
And you will cry out on that day because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you on that day.

mahagonny

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.

marshwiggle

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.
It takes so little to be above average.

Puget

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.
"Never get separated from your lunch. Never get separated from your friends. Never climb up anything you can't climb down."
–Best Colorado Peak Hikes

marshwiggle

#55
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.


It takes so little to be above average.

mahagonny

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.

ergative

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.'

dismalist

Connectivity.

How about connection?
That's not even wrong!
--Wolfgang Pauli

apl68

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.
And you will cry out on that day because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you on that day.