Minor things that bother you

[thenetwork]

Stealing bases in baseball is okay...unless you take the base from the field...

[Max Rockatansky]

Why does every business insist on you filling out a survey?  Even my dentist who I've been visiting since 2016 is now sending me one. 

[kphoger]

I have a diagnosis for depression, or whatever the current clinical term for it is.  My grandmother had diabetes.  She said "I am diabetic."  If I had diabetes, I would say "I have diabetes."  To say "I am..." makes it part of your identity as opposed to describing a thing about you.  My diagnosis is different.  Some conditions affect who you are, or who you understand yourself to be.  In a sense, it becomes a part of your identity.  I don't say "I am depressed," because most people will think that means I'm sad in that moment.  That isn't what depression is.  But to say it that way, to me, is the most accurate wording.  Depression isn't something I have, it's something about who I am.

And yet, don't some people make a full recovery from clinical depression, which is to say permanently cured?  In that sense, even if you consider it to be part of who you are, it's possible that it's only a temporary aspect.

I've also started hearing the homeless referred to as 'people experiencing homelessness', and the poor as 'people experiencing poverty'.  This is a clear attempt to remove stigma, but it just comes across to me as a clunky and unnecessary phrasing.

[1995hoo]

....

I've also started hearing the homeless referred to as 'people experiencing homelessness', and the poor as 'people experiencing poverty'.  This is a clear attempt to remove stigma, but it just comes across to me as a clunky and unnecessary phrasing.

One of the local newscasts here used the word "unhoused." 

[Max Rockatansky]

....

I've also started hearing the homeless referred to as 'people experiencing homelessness', and the poor as 'people experiencing poverty'.  This is a clear attempt to remove stigma, but it just comes across to me as a clunky and unnecessary phrasing.

One of the local newscasts here used the word "unhoused." 

I can't recall the last time I saw the term "homeless" used on the news or government-speak in California. 

[Big John]

Every company feeling they are entitled to add their app to my phone.

[Molandfreak]

....

I've also started hearing the homeless referred to as 'people experiencing homelessness', and the poor as 'people experiencing poverty'.  This is a clear attempt to remove stigma, but it just comes across to me as a clunky and unnecessary phrasing.

One of the local newscasts here used the word "unhoused." 

It seems to me like this is just a solution in search of a problem. A few years ago, there was likewise a push to change the language from "disabled" to "differently-abled." I work with blind folks all the time and none of them thought this was a good idea.

[Molandfreak]

Every company feeling they are entitled to add their app to my phone.

I miss when a nice mobile version of a website was good enough.

[kkt]

Why does every business insist on you filling out a survey?  Even my dentist who I've been visiting since 2016 is now sending me one. 

If you say you like them they'll ask you for a google review.

Which most people will ignore because google reviews are so easily faked.

[jeffandnicole]

Why does every business insist on you filling out a survey?  Even my dentist who I've been visiting since 2016 is now sending me one. 

If you say you like them they'll ask you for a google review.

Which most people will ignore because google reviews are so easily faked.

Max R: We appreciate your input with the AAForums.  How many stars do you rate kkt's response?  We'll give you 5% off your next comment if you leave a 5 star review with 3 pictures and a description of your interaction.

[mgk920]

....

I've also started hearing the homeless referred to as 'people experiencing homelessness', and the poor as 'people experiencing poverty'.  This is a clear attempt to remove stigma, but it just comes across to me as a clunky and unnecessary phrasing.

One of the local newscasts here used the word "unhoused." 

That latter term has also been very common among many political leaders over he past couple of years.

Mike

[formulanone]

political leader

Oxymoron Cafe told me to cancel that jumbo shrimp order.

[kernals12]

I have a diagnosis for depression, or whatever the current clinical term for it is.  My grandmother had diabetes.  She said "I am diabetic."  If I had diabetes, I would say "I have diabetes."  To say "I am..." makes it part of your identity as opposed to describing a thing about you.  My diagnosis is different.  Some conditions affect who you are, or who you understand yourself to be.  In a sense, it becomes a part of your identity.  I don't say "I am depressed," because most people will think that means I'm sad in that moment.  That isn't what depression is.  But to say it that way, to me, is the most accurate wording.  Depression isn't something I have, it's something about who I am.

And yet, don't some people make a full recovery from clinical depression, which is to say permanently cured?  In that sense, even if you consider it to be part of who you are, it's possible that it's only a temporary aspect.

I've also started hearing the homeless referred to as 'people experiencing homelessness', and the poor as 'people experiencing poverty'.  This is a clear attempt to remove stigma, but it just comes across to me as a clunky and unnecessary phrasing.

Also, history shows us that such attempts backfire because the new phrases gain their own stigma.  (e.g. "welfare" replacing "the dole", "mentally retarded" replacing "insane", and the thousands of euphemisms for genitalia)

[SEWIGuy]

I have a diagnosis for depression, or whatever the current clinical term for it is.  My grandmother had diabetes.  She said "I am diabetic."  If I had diabetes, I would say "I have diabetes."  To say "I am..." makes it part of your identity as opposed to describing a thing about you.  My diagnosis is different.  Some conditions affect who you are, or who you understand yourself to be.  In a sense, it becomes a part of your identity.  I don't say "I am depressed," because most people will think that means I'm sad in that moment.  That isn't what depression is.  But to say it that way, to me, is the most accurate wording.  Depression isn't something I have, it's something about who I am.

And yet, don't some people make a full recovery from clinical depression, which is to say permanently cured?  In that sense, even if you consider it to be part of who you are, it's possible that it's only a temporary aspect.

I've also started hearing the homeless referred to as 'people experiencing homelessness', and the poor as 'people experiencing poverty'.  This is a clear attempt to remove stigma, but it just comes across to me as a clunky and unnecessary phrasing.

Also, history shows us that such attempts backfire because the new phrases gain their own stigma.  (e.g. "welfare" replacing "the dole", "mentally retarded" replacing "insane", and the thousands of euphemisms for genitalia)

I wouldn't say they "backfire." Words change meaning over time. Always have, always will.

[kphoger]

I wouldn't say they "backfire." Words change meaning over time. Always have, always will.

Correct.  Backfiring would mean the new word is even more offensive than the old one.  That's not the case.  For example, when the term 'colored' took on a negative connotation, it didn't become even more offensive than the n- word it replaced.

[mgk920]

I wouldn't say they "backfire." Words change meaning over time. Always have, always will.

Correct.  Backfiring would mean the new word is even more offensive than the old one.  That's not the case.  For example, when the term 'colored' took on a negative connotation, it didn't become even more offensive than the n- word it replaced.

'People of Color' or 'colored people'?

 

Mike

[kphoger]

'People of Color' or 'colored people'?

Actually, that's one of the most head-scratching ones in my opinion.  How the one is acceptable but the other offensive:  that's beyond me.

[SEWIGuy]

'People of Color' or 'colored people'?

Actually, that's one of the most head-scratching ones in my opinion.  How the one is acceptable but the other offensive:  that's beyond me.

"Colored people" implies that something happened to them - they aren't white but were "colored" to be different.

"People of color" implies that people are, and always were, of color.

[kphoger]

"Colored people" implies that something happened to them - they aren't white but were "colored" to be different.

If that's the case, then why, as the Oxford English Dictionary says, was the term 'Coloured ... adopted in the United States by emancipated slaves as a term of racial pride after the end of the American Civil War'?

[SEWIGuy]

"Colored people" implies that something happened to them - they aren't white but were "colored" to be different.

If that's the case, then why, as the Oxford English Dictionary says, was the term 'Coloured ... adopted in the United States by emancipated slaves as a term of racial pride after the end of the American Civil War'?

As I said...

Words change meaning over time. Always have, always will.

[kphoger]

Are you trying to tell me that the term 'colored' began to imply that God colored them black only long after that time?  Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.  Everything I'm reading suggests that 'colored' fell out of favor among black people simply because it was reminiscent of earlier periods of American history in which slavery and Jim Crow laws were a thing—no mention of its being because the term implied that they were 'colored to be different'.

[kernals12]

Are you trying to tell me that the term 'colored' began to imply that God colored them black only long after that time?  Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Everything I'm reading suggests that 'colored' fell out of favor among black people simply because it was reminiscent of earlier periods of American history in which slavery and Jim Crow laws were a thing—no mention of its being because the term implied that they were 'colored to be different'.

That's what the ancients greeks believed.

[JayhawkCO]

Are you trying to tell me that the term 'colored' began to imply that God colored them black only long after that time?  Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Everything I'm reading suggests that 'colored' fell out of favor among black people simply because it was reminiscent of earlier periods of American history in which slavery and Jim Crow laws were a thing—no mention of its being because the term implied that they were 'colored to be different'.

That's what the ancients greeks believed.

But they didn't use the word "colored". They spoke Greek.

[JayhawkCO]

Are you trying to tell me that the term 'colored' began to imply that God colored them black only long after that time?  Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Everything I'm reading suggests that 'colored' fell out of favor among black people simply because it was reminiscent of earlier periods of American history in which slavery and Jim Crow laws were a thing—no mention of its being because the term implied that they were 'colored to be different'.

That's what the ancients greeks believed.

But they didn't use the word "colored". They spoke Greek.

And for a more serious answer, the ancient Greeks called anyone with darker skin "Aethiops" or Ethiopian, which meant burnt-face.

[kphoger]

But it doesn't matter, because my very point was that such a belief has only become less prominent with time.  It's not like more people believe that sort of thing nowadays than during American slavery.