2 ms·
Now that’s some creepy doublespeak: “minors in violation”
by ethanbond 3y ago
Now that’s some creepy doublespeak: “minors in violation”
- actionfromafar 3y agoIt's not as much doublespeak as very technical lingo?
- AlecSchueler 3y agoIsn't that what doublespeak is? There are a few readily available alternative formulations in everyday English which could be just as well employed here (no pun intended).
- KineticLensman 3y agoIn it's original Orwellian meaning, doublespeak is language that disguises, changes or even reverses the meaning of words and statements.
- ethanbond 3y agoI would say the difference between "Minors in violation" (GP's comment) exactly reverses the meaning of "Minors employed in violation" (the actual term). I didn't click through to the linked source so wasn't aware this was a subtle misquote.
- actionfromafar 3y ago“Employed” can also be implied, depending on context.
- tokai 3y agoThats not what it says. It's "Minors Employed In Violation". Your version is creepy. The actual sentence is precise.
- ethanbond 3y agoAh I was responding to GP's comment which does say "minors in violation." You're right that the gov't doesn't use that language (and realizing GP probably just forgot a word).