Doublespeak Terms that Turn Your Stomach

fluoro

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Posts
287
Media
57
Likes
1,457
Points
598
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Bush administration thrives on doublespeak - here are just a few examples:
Healthy Forests Initiative - allows increased logging
Clear Skies Initiative - weakened air quality standards
extraordinary rendition - sounds better than kidnap
preemptive strike - sounds better than unprovoked attack
surgical strike - is this a medical term?
security contractor - sounds better than mercenary
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
So what now Madam Zora? I went into a deep funk after I knew that the corporate route was just not for me. Took my about a year to get my bearings find out what was important to me, what I really liked doing and go back to school and switch careers.

Why not get that degree if you only have 2 semesters left? It will open doors for you. It may not matter much to you but unfortunately it matters to a lot of employers.

Haha, I would only have a useless four year degree in psychology anyway. After volunteering in a rape crisis center, I realised that I don't have the detatchment necessary to be a good counsellor. To do the kind of work I would enjoy, such as research, would take a lot more education, and honestly I just didn't have the drive or the money. I still don't. I would have needed two more years to get an education certificate, and that was twenty years ago, I doubt much of my education would be pertinent at all by now.

I really am a great salesman, I sell myself easily on jobs, even without a degree. When you're willing to work for commission only, the employer really has very little to lose giving me a try, especially with my track record. I just lost the drive to sell too.

I have good memories of my corporate life too. The perks were great and fortunately I had a lot of kindered spirits who felt as I did at work and subsequently got out and doing other things - they're just not as sarcastic now - well maybe not. Switching careers felt like the earth was crumbling under me, especially the financial part.

What's weird is that I thought I had left for a certain set of reasons. I tried several times to go back last year, and I found that it will be nearly impossible. I can't kiis ass anymore, and that used to be a specialty of mine. I can't "be polite" in appropriate situations, can't tell moronic people they're brilliant, and basically just can't and won't lie.

Believe me, I'm the happiest person to be broke you're likely to meet. It's tough sometimes, but I keep thinking about the trade-off. Those interviews made me a lot more grateful for what I really do have.
 

dannymawg

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Posts
1,113
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
183
I'm never working for CorporateAmerica™ again.
Somehow I think I'll be eating these words...

When I think about what it did to my body to eat shit everyday, I'm glad I went on a reduced-shit diet.
Thank you for the best laff today :biggrin1: Reduced shit diet...

"irregardless" and "enthused"
I confess I knew about irregardless, but have dropped "enthused" before in speech. Didn't realize it was not "traditional"...

All you New Traditionalists :rolleyes:


On the one hand: I did get off on the futuristic, "Workin' Downtown!" with the snappy fingers aura, but I got burnt out on all the food within a six block radius. Speaking of reduced-shit diet: my cholesterol went down 12 points a year later.

On the other: 30 years ago, any telecom sales force was a very tight, exclusive old boy group. Telecom didn't need salespeople - they were the only game in town, along with the gas and the electric. 20 years ago the idea of "competition" was implemented in telecom, which then spawned legions of college kids manning start-ups.

The telecom sales enviroment is a very strange animal now. This, coming from someone with more than 20 years of sales operations experience in a, uh... variety of industry.


In other words: you out there with the BMW and the townhouse and your dumbass boat - I made your shit happen. I made the most fucked up deal you could pull out of your ass - happen. I got there early. I got there late, and it turned out to be a good thing. I fixed it. Sometimes I fixed it good. And yeah sometimes I fucked it up good too.



Have A Nice Day! :smile:
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
I can't kiis ass anymore, and that used to be a specialty of mine. I can't "be polite" in appropriate situations, can't tell moronic people they're brilliant, and basically just can't and won't lie.
quote]

Yes totally agree with you. Boy, how do you do that? You're refreshingly frank - the antithesis of corporate culture.

Regarding your comment on going on a low bullshit diet-
My barber told me this one yesterday - "Life is a bullshit sandwich the more bread you have the less bullshit you need to eat." I thought it was funny - wierd he would say that after me reading your post.


Here's my beef against these terms-

In harm's way - I hate making "harm" into a noun-it's so vague, benign sounding as if harm cuts a swath thru peoples lives and you better get out of the way to save yourself. NO not soldiers in harm's way, SAY solders out of danger of being killed by terrorists.

Insurance Adjuster- the term adjuster is corporate bullshit made up by the marketing manipulators to make you feel like they are on your side - it should be "compensation decider". There is no adjusting done to screw you out of money you rightly deserve, you have no say in the matter-whatsoever, there's nothing to adjust.

Erectile Disfunction- Pharmacutical marketing spinners make getting an erection sound like an mechanical or electrical function divorced from the body like its some automatic response, a mechanism that can be fixed by replacing parts or a circuit board. I also despise them for spinning a belief that something is wrong with you if you don't get an erection. You are disfunctional and abnormal if you don't have a 4 hour erection. While in real life it is quite a natural thing not to be horny 24/7 and not get an erection all the time - contrary to what the pill makers would have you believe.

We all seem to take these terms for granted but they are insidieous. Lies and deceit are intrinsically evil and damaging.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
earllogjam, wow- thanks for the illumination on your least favorite words, I hadn't thought about several of those. Of course there's nothing "wrong" with you if you don't walk around with a constant erection- maybe you're just not in the mood, or doing your taxes! What insideous ways marketers find to sell us products by attacking our egos.

I despise all the military terms intended to take the humainty out of atrocities. Ohh, here's a winner-

Friendly fire. That borders on psychosis.
 

Wrat

Expert Member
Joined
May 6, 2006
Posts
787
Media
7
Likes
136
Points
173
Location
As mentioned above, in the middle, between the eas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Liberal
Outlived it's usefulness as a label a long time ago. In the most negative usage, tends to imply that you have no respect for government money and that you want everyone to be nice to poor people and non-whites. "Liberals" are percieved to value unrealistic principles, and to be willing to rob from the whole of the American economy to support false and destructive ideals of correctess and to assign little value to the entrepreneurial spirit. Actually, few "liberals" would knowingly support a government that was not cost effective. Most "liberals" know where common sense defines the usefulness of extreme liberalism, and know that Bill Maher is really not that funny. Some Democrats avoid the label now because they know that it is difficult to win elections when you are assumed to be promoting gun control. More useful as an ajective. "Liberalness" sounds awkward, but works well for what it is. "Liberals" tend to believe that the better way to promote the general welfare of this country is through more direct funding. Not necessarily by charging the economy and expecting the overall benefits to provide.

Conservative
Same. Implies that you are money hungry and have little or no regard for the welfare of less forunate people. Any non-whites in this group tend to be considered sellouts or tokens, and there is a perception of a pervasive meanness and greed among party members. Recent Republican ties with fundamentalist Christians are often percieved as a threat to secular priorities in government and a cause for deep concern among "liberals" and "conservatives" alike. With the early success of the war in Iraq support for conservative priorities have crystallized and gained momentum, regardless of the more recent failure to consolidate and secure the country. Very few Republicans will deny the "conservative" label. Once again the term is more useful as an adjective. "Conservativeness" is not a bad thing, considering that most conservative thinkers do not disagree with the necessity for some minimal provisions for managing the plight of the underprivelidged, or providing basic support for times of economic difficulty. Most "conservatives" with any sense do not believe that Anne Coulter has that much to offer, and find her bawdy sailor talk and aggressive behavior a poor example and unrepresentative of the Republican character in general. "Conservatives" believe that the better way to promote the general welfare is to provide opportunities by fueling the American economic machine, not necessarily by direct funding.

Do you know which one you are? Do you know why? Do you feel obliged to surrender some of your own notions to satisfy the intellectual taboos or requirements to fit in to these groups...to avoid their disapproval?


These labels need to be scrapped.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
These labels need to be scrapped.

Yes. The problem lies in the propensity for us to label and pigeonhole people and ideas so they can be understood in a sound clip with the least amount of effort to the greatest number of people. To create understandable groups with clear ideologies that can be branded. I agree these terms Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Left Wing, Right Wing don't accurately describe the political landscape today. I think most people are a mix of both. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal that's me.

I don't always vote along party lines but rather the individual candidates, sometimes republican, sometimes democrate, sometimes green, which ever views I most align with - which is usually a mixure of conservative and liberal views. Liberal used to mean pro change, and conservative use to mean pro status quo. But much of the status quo has come to embody liberal ideas such as civil rights, end of slavery, legalized abortion...etc. So the terms left and right, liberal, conservative accurately described politics 30 years ago during the Vietnam war and hippie era but aren't as clear anymore. They are becoming anachronisms, out dated, useless.

Seems like a more accurate pigeonholing of the country in terms of ideology is more divided along rural and urban lines. That's how the vote is generally split in California - the coast votes socially and fiscally liberal and the center agricultural and mountain areas almost always conservative and it played the same on a macro scale across the nation with the 2 coasts and Great Lake states going blue. Because where you live and your environment determines your value system and obviously city folk have different requirements for living than country folk do and value different things. Cosmoplitan vs. Country, Science vs. Bible, New Ideals vs. Traditional Ideals, Expansion vs. Contraction, Community well being vs. Individual Family well being, Green Alternative Energy vs Oil and Coal energy, Gun Control vs Personal Guns and Rifles. Density vs. Sprawl. Hybrids vs. Trucks. World Communty vs. Isolated insular foreign policy, New Ideas and Personal exploration vs. Basic Reading Writing and Arithmetic. Fast life vs. Slow life. Competition Strife vs. Complacency. New and Improved vs Tried and True. Is it no wonder why the great learning institutions are in very liberal towns?

So what can be the new pigeonhole terms of the new political age? Metrosexual and Hick, Town and Country, Progressive and Traditionalist. How about getting rid of these stupid terms altogether and having a real dialog on issues without these blanket generalizations getting in the way of cooperation and progress towards a better place to live for all us plebians. Save the pigeonholing for the birds. It's like hearing arguments and deciding on issues without the prejudice of a label and to decide on its own intrinsic merits or faults- now wouldn't that be refreshing, rational decison making based on facts. Truth not contrived partisan Truthiness.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
irregardless
an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper


It is considered non-standard English. Sorry guy.

Neg-a-tive. I never said it was acceptable or unacceptable. I just said it was a word! It's just not standardized... just as bit and byte were not a couple decades ago. And actually it's origin may not be as a double negative, but a blending of irrespective and regardless that's kinda the feeling I got from the word when I first challenged it.

"Irregardless is a word that many people mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. The word was coined in the United States in the early 20th century, probably from a blend of irrespective and regardless."

Note how it opens with "...is a word that..."

MERRIAM-WEBSTER:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Function: adverb
nonstandard : [SIZE=-1]REGARDLESS[/SIZE]
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Neg-a-tive. I never said it was acceptable or unacceptable. I just said it was a word! It's just not standardized... just as bit and byte were not a couple decades ago. And actually it's origin may not be as a double negative, but a blending of irrespective and regardless that's kinda the feeling I got from the word when I first challenged it.

"Irregardless is a word that many people mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. The word was coined in the United States in the early 20th century, probably from a blend of irrespective and regardless."

Note how it opens with "...is a word that..."

MERRIAM-WEBSTER: Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Function: adverb
nonstandard : [SIZE=-1]REGARDLESS[/SIZE]
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however.


This is a bad argument. "Everyone else before me confused irrespective and regardless, so now it's okay!!!11!!"

Sorry pal, if you're calling any combination of letters that can be pronounced a word, then what's the point of grammar having ANY rules?

Technically, it's just a misinterpretation of two words and people who use it look stupid. Making a semantical argument when the problem is clearly with the usage is pretty infantile as well.

edit- irrespective and regardless are both negatives anyway.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Neg-a-tive. I never said it was acceptable or unacceptable. I just said it was a word! It's just not standardized... just as bit and byte were not a couple decades ago. And actually it's origin may not be as a double negative, but a blending of irrespective and regardless that's kinda the feeling I got from the word when I first challenged it.

"Irregardless is a word that many people mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. The word was coined in the United States in the early 20th century, probably from a blend of irrespective and regardless."

Note how it opens with "...is a word that..."

MERRIAM-WEBSTER: Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Function: adverb
nonstandard : [SIZE=-1]REGARDLESS[/SIZE]
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however.

But then anything can be a word? So what? Do you know my former boss? Are you my former boss?

No seriously, the beauty of the English language is that is has the ability to change with us users, incorporate new words, leave others behind, change usage of words, so words like "groovy", "gay", "hippie", all now have a standard place in our language. They all started off as non-standard words. If the majority of people start to use "irregardless" in place of "regardless" then it will become standardized but for now, not the case. You come across as an uneducated bore when you use it.

Grammatical rules are absolutely required to create clarity and eliminate ambiguity in communication. The rules are not arbitrary like choosing words out of your butt and deciding that they are correct.

Not cringeworthy but grimace worthy.

Servicing the Target (millitary term meaning shoot to kill)
Pre-boarding (to board the plane before you board...huh?)
Restroom (this confuses people from the UK, I guess you can rest sitting on the toilet)
Life Preserver (the French find this funny because their word for condom is "preservatif")
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
If the majority of people start to use "irregardless" in place of "regardless" then it will become standardized but for now, not the case. You come across as an uneducated bore when you use it.


To be completely pedantic, it won't ever become a word to any other than the incredibly stupid, because it's a double negative. Regardless already means "without regard". To place an "ir" before that literally means "without without regard" which doesn't make sense. This is not a colloquialism, just bad grammar. In EVERY case I've ever seen it, it's presumed to mean "however". In EVERY case, "regardless" is the proper word. Of course, you could just say "stove" if it makes you feel better about yourself.:rolleyes:
 

titan1968

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Posts
876
Media
5
Likes
748
Points
313
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
One term that gets my goat is 'positive discrimination'. When is discrimination positive?

I also dislike the term 'political correctness'. I believe in calling a spade a spade; I don't believe in sugar-coating.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The 'Moral Majority' has made 'family' into a fascist buzzword, the titles of their legislation, the 'Family Protection Act', and the 'Defense of Marriage Act', to discriminate against gay families.

I agree about the inconvenience of 'African American', it would make sense only to refer to someone who has themself emigrated to the US from Africa, and how about someone elsewhere than the US, each would need it's own term, African-Canadian, African-Britt, African-Cuban, African-Jamaican, and someone whose ancestors have traveled more than once, African-Puerto Rican-American. It is a matter of each generation wanting a 'new improved' term for itself, the previous one didn't get it quite right.

(None of my ancestors came through Ellis Island either)
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
One term that gets my goat is 'positive discrimination'. When is discrimination positive?...

Actually, this one makes sense. To discriminate means to distinguish between one thing and another by some criteria. It's original meaning has no positive or negative connotation.

However, in practice, when applied to races, discrimination has come to mean granting less opportunity to one race over another. That clearly has a negative connotation.

So the term "positive discrimination" would mean to grant more opportunity to a particular race. For example, if Native Americans are discriminated against in the work place, an affirmative action program could compensate for that by applying "positive discrimination".

Although this makes sense, it is still annoying. So it belongs on this list of Doublespeak.