4 ms·

I know the French bit (and college educated bit!) is the part that caused the humor/uproar, but I don't understand the recommendation by AP. I'm assuming using

I know the French bit (and college educated bit!) is the part that caused the humor/uproar, but I don't understand the recommendation by AP. I'm assuming using "the" with some group is perceived at making that group an other/lesser group. and switching to "people with" is meant to correct that. if that's the reasoning, i don't see how that buys you anything. i get that some speech can be reprehensible, but in this case it seems that the the pejorative implications of the language are imbued by people's intentions, not the words themselves. so in a few years, ap will be telling me that "people with" is also marginalizing. howver, i could be one of "the ignorant" on this topic.

LegitShady 4y ago
>by AP you mean the ap
pjc50 4y ago
This is called the "Euphemism treadmill": http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-the-euphemism-treadmill/ http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-th...
- busyant 4y ago
  Never heard of that phrase, but it's great. Thank you.
- tzs 4y ago
  Does that really apply here? In euphemism treadmill it looks like a word gets replaced because a secondary derogatory or offensive meaning of it comes to dominate with the general public and so the word in its original, often technical, use gets replaced. E.g., "retarded" was originally a medical term, became a general purpose derogatory word, and then medicine switched to something else because of that. In all the examples given on that page this replacement happens. That's not what is happening in the AP guide changes. E.g., when they say don't use "the poor" they aren't saying to no longer use the word "poor". They are saying to say "poor people" or "people who are poor" instead of "the poor".
  - busyant 4y ago
    I disagree. I don't see the difference between "the poor" and "people who are poor." As described in the cambridgeblog post, the problem is the underlying issue (e.g., being poor), not necessarily the phrases used to describe the issue. I suppose you can say that, as time progresses, certain terms are saddled with unnecessary pejorative baggage (e.g., "retarded"), so I can understand the desire to swap in a new term that doesn't have the baggage. But sometimes it seems that the difference is so fine (e.g., between "the poor" and "poor people") that I don't have the resolving power to tell the difference.
actsasbuffoon 4y ago
It seems like a consistency improvement. Once upon a time terms like “Chinamen” were considered acceptable, but then we started to frown on those forms for marginalized groups. Ditto for phrases like “the Blacks.” The problem is that this left a bunch of related forms around, like Frenchmen and “Whites.” I can only speak for myself, but I internally recoil when surveys refer to “Whites.” This stance seems like it just improves consistency. Now we’ve got Chinese People, French people, Black people, and White people. This doesn’t seem like it should irritate anyone.
- hiyer 4y ago
  In cricket, we used to have a type of bowler called the left arm chinaman. There haven't been too many chinamen bowlers over the years, so I couldn't recall when I'd last seen the term. Not surprisingly, I find now that it has been renamed to left arm unorthodox spin.
willis936 4y ago
It's attempting to generalize where generalization is a bad idea. "The French" is not on the same level as "the Jews". They didn't even note that there is a difference. How can they be a claim to be an authority in this area?

LegitShady 4y ago

>by AP you mean the ap

pjc50 4y ago

This is called the "Euphemism treadmill": http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-the-euphemism-treadmill/ http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/08/ableist-language-and-th...

busyant 4y ago
Never heard of that phrase, but it's great. Thank you.
tzs 4y ago
Does that really apply here? In euphemism treadmill it looks like a word gets replaced because a secondary derogatory or offensive meaning of it comes to dominate with the general public and so the word in its original, often technical, use gets replaced. E.g., "retarded" was originally a medical term, became a general purpose derogatory word, and then medicine switched to something else because of that. In all the examples given on that page this replacement happens. That's not what is happening in the AP guide changes. E.g., when they say don't use "the poor" they aren't saying to no longer use the word "poor". They are saying to say "poor people" or "people who are poor" instead of "the poor".
- busyant 4y ago
  I disagree. I don't see the difference between "the poor" and "people who are poor." As described in the cambridgeblog post, the problem is the underlying issue (e.g., being poor), not necessarily the phrases used to describe the issue. I suppose you can say that, as time progresses, certain terms are saddled with unnecessary pejorative baggage (e.g., "retarded"), so I can understand the desire to swap in a new term that doesn't have the baggage. But sometimes it seems that the difference is so fine (e.g., between "the poor" and "poor people") that I don't have the resolving power to tell the difference.

actsasbuffoon 4y ago

It seems like a consistency improvement. Once upon a time terms like “Chinamen” were considered acceptable, but then we started to frown on those forms for marginalized groups. Ditto for phrases like “the Blacks.” The problem is that this left a bunch of related forms around, like Frenchmen and “Whites.” I can only speak for myself, but I internally recoil when surveys refer to “Whites.” This stance seems like it just improves consistency. Now we’ve got Chinese People, French people, Black people, and White people. This doesn’t seem like it should irritate anyone.

hiyer 4y ago
In cricket, we used to have a type of bowler called the left arm chinaman. There haven't been too many chinamen bowlers over the years, so I couldn't recall when I'd last seen the term. Not surprisingly, I find now that it has been renamed to left arm unorthodox spin.

willis936 4y ago

It's attempting to generalize where generalization is a bad idea. "The French" is not on the same level as "the Jews". They didn't even note that there is a difference. How can they be a claim to be an authority in this area?