Annoying Euphemisms

I see euphemisms in two different categories--both discussed here. Those that are designed to be polite or kind and those that are designed to cover or mask reality.

Big business and government use the latter; the rest of us use the former. I find that whem I'm writing a note of condolence, I hesitate to use the word "dead" or "death." It depends.

When the company I worked for "downsized" me, I hated the word as much as I hated what they did. Still do.

Roberta's right, as usual. To call a runt 'petite' is just kind and polite. To call a cop's nightstick or billy club a 'baton' is evasive Newspeak.

Ok, I know this isn't a euphamism, but I don't like the term "little person" for dwarves/midgets.

From what I understand, that what they like being called, but somehow, it just sounds worse.

I would rather refer to myself as a dwarf than a little person, that makes me sound insignificant.

Years back, now husband, then BF, had a mutual friend who was a dwarf, as was her daughter, who was about 3 at the time.

Ususally we refered to her as "Kris" since that was her name. However, when she talked about operations, health concerns about herself and her little girl, she always talked about their dwarfism, as that's the medical term.

I dunno, I could be wrong, just my take on it. I'll call a group of people whatever they want.

But what's wrong with the word dwarf?

Generally, soldiers may be referred to as troops. (plural) E.g. British troops entered Basra, US troops eat K-Rations.

In the British and some other armies, a troop in the singular is a military unit, originally a small force of cavalry, subordinate to a squadron and headed by the troop leader. Cavalry soldiers of private rank are called troopers (abbreviated Tpr., not troupers). Today, troop has different specific meanings in different armed forces.

(1) British Army and Royal Marines

In the British Army the definition of a troop varies by corps.

* Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps: Three or four armoured fighting vehicles commanded by a subaltern, or the equivalent of a platoon in headquarters elements. The troop commander commands one vehicle himself, the troop sergeant a second, and the others are commanded by corporals.

* Special Air Service: Sixteen men, organised into four four-man patrols, and commanded by a captain (who also commands one of the patrols himself, the troop sergeant commanding another).

* Royal Artillery: A unit of two to four guns or launchers, or an equivalent headquarters unit. In the Royal Horse Artillery, a troop used to be the equivalent to a battery in other artillery units.

* Royal Engineers, Royal Corps of Signals and Royal Logistic Corps: A unit equivalent in size to a platoon in other corps, divided into sections.

Other corps do not use the term.

In the Royal Marines, a troop is the equivalent to an army platoon.

(2) Canadian Army

In the Canadian Army, a Troop is the equivalent of a platoon within the Armoured, Engineer, and Signals branches. Two to four Troops are group under a squadron.

(3) U.S. Cavalry

In the United States Army, in the cavalry branch, a troop is the equivalent unit to the infantry company, commanded by a captain and consisting of 3 or 4 platoons, and subordinate to a squadron (battalion).

I hate "team-member" when used instead of "staff" or even "workers". It implies something (a team spirit, or some such crap) which is usually not there.

The wife left Starbucks back when they were a tiny evil corporation bent on taking over the world when they sent out literature referring to employees as "disciples" or some such term. What the hell was the word...

Have you noticed that there are no "employees" any more? They're all "associates" now. The guy barely making minimum wage stocking the shelves at WalMart is refrred to as an associate. Sickening.

And a janitor is a custodial engineer - what is wrong with 'janitor'? Seems that people get classified, stigmatized, then reclassified, restigmatized, etc etc etc...

We have this in offices - used to be an office manager ran the office, made all the office decisions, etc. Now it's just someone in the office. And God help you if you call someone a secretary - they're all administrative assistants, except that's on the way out now, too. They're now office administrators.

The two I have the most problems with, though, are calling legally blind people 'visually impaired'. Yes, I suppose that's an impairment, but come on - she can't see, she's blind! Impairment implies a partial disability whereas blind implies no sight. IE... would you want a 'blind' person driving? But no problem with someone who has a visual impairment.

And what is 'mentally challenged' - that phrase told me nothing - are they 'developmentally delayed', mentally retarded, psychotic, neurotic, schizophrenic, autistic, what?

Everybody's "challenged" now, Mame. To say "disabled" or "handicapped" is to put your very life on the line, certainly your reputation as a caring person. Even "impaired" is begining to be a no-no word.

I'm not quibbling about 'disabled' vs 'impaired' or 'challenged' - i'm talking about 'legally blind' being called 'visually impaired' and 'mentally ill' having so many different connotations.

Did that not come across?

I'm not quibbling about 'disabled' vs 'impaired' vs 'challenged' - I'm talking about 'legally blind' being called 'visually impaired' and 'mentally ill' having so many different connotations. There are dangerous implications in some mental illnesses that aren't in others.

Did that not come across?

Good points.

The loss of "employees" is just the removal of a very specific status which is accurate and not necessarily demeaning.

You don't have to believe in the end of capitalism to recognise that Marx was right in separating "capital" and "labour" - those with capital employ labour (i.e. "employees") to conduct work for the purpose of increasing that capital (i.e. share price/company value) or using it to achieve ends which the ownners determine.

It may be that the exact ownership of that capital these days is in the hands of a wider pool of shareholders/pension funds etc. or in the control of the state (e.g. armed/police forces) but those who work within such organisations are still employees. I'm one - I work for a partnership but I'm not a partner!

That doesn't mean I feel exploited but to take away the status of "employee" does take away the correct description of my status.

KP

I was just agreeing with you, Mame. I guess that didn't come across.

I must have read it when my brain was dead

How are you today, Merry?

I'm fit as a fiddle, Mame. And yourself?

Ditto!

That's right. PC-speak and PC thinking is a hindrance to understanding.

One thing I heard recently, that in schools etcetera, children of mixed race are now not called that, but are referred to as having "dual heritage".

Ye gods. What about the ones with quadruple and quintuple heritage.

I understand why it's done, but changing a label has no real value I think.

jeez...

it's like there's people out there who get paid for sitting around and thinking up this stuff...

dual heritage

unless you marry your brother or sister, we've all got dual heritages.




I wanna know what suddenly sparks this need for a new dumb as term like that.

seriously, people getting paid for this...I envision this group of people sitting around and realizing "hey, we're running out of money, let's see what term we haven't changed in a year or so"

I don't even know what to call anybody anymore, and mostly, I don't care.


oh...here's a funny one I heard at the gym not that very long ago....

2 young women were discussing their exercise routines, and one says to the other..

"oh, I don't do aerobics anymore. Now I do cardio, it's SO much better."


I'm dead serious.

Hehe... Now they are using the same terms differently.. hmm