banned -- now, more than ever

jbm · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2003 6:36 pm

Most overused terms of 2002, including the old fave "weapons of mass destruction":http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current/default.html

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:32 pm

My favorite (should I say "fave"?) is "make no mistake about it."Why the hell would anyone put that phrase in a story?

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Jan 09, 2003 12:59 am

I got a good laugh out of "branding," which I gagged on a few times last year. One would think that MBAs would know by now not to make themselves the subject of ridicule by coining terms that make them sound like the pointy-haired boss in "Dilbert." Maybe they should learn to "think outside the box." (Did that ever make the list?)The one entry I strongly disagree with is "reverse discrimination." "Discrimination" means one thing; "reverse discrimination" means something else.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Thu Jan 09, 2003 2:12 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
The one entry I strongly disagree with is "reverse discrimination." "Discrimination" means one thing; "reverse discrimination" means something else.<hr></blockquote>I disagree. To discriminate means to prefer a certain set -- reverse discrimination means precisely the same thing. The only difference is the sets in question.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Jan 09, 2003 8:50 pm

One of our Testy Copy Editor associates asked Tom Pink, who administers the list:"I'm curious to know why you would want to banish words from the Queen's English. Being an American school, wouldn't it make more sense to have a list of words banished from American English?"Pink replied: "I inherited the name of the list when I took the job, but several people have questioned it. Perhaps we should consider changing the name."***I might have other suggestions for Mr. Pink should he ever ask.***[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:32 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Pete Hahnloser:
I disagree. To discriminate means to prefer a certain set -- reverse discrimination means precisely the same thing. The only difference is the sets in question.<hr></blockquote>Sorry, but that's just not true, neither in everyday usage nor in Webster's.Look, if a lede says, "Gary Kirchherr was a victim of discrimination," that means something quite different than "Gary Kirchherr was a victim of reverse discrimination."I'm all for stamping out silly words and expressions. Few people would miss "extreme" and "he got game" if we never saw them in print again. But as for "reverse discrimination" and some other examples, my feeling is, our friends at LSSU and those who want recognition on their list are trying a bit too hard. And it shows.[ January 10, 2003: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:18 am

Webster's New World, the dictionary most of us use, defines "reverse discrimination":Discrimination in hiring, college admissions, etc. directed against members of certain social or racial groups, as white males, thought of as being dominant or having benefited from past discrimination against minority groups who are now favored, often as a result of affirmative action.The definition, though, does not clear the term of the baggage it carries. It reads more like a political statement than a definition. It is code, usually meaning "that uppity black guy got the job I deserve." It is a term whose definition generally will be accepted only by aggrieved white men. That said, if there ever was a battle over the term's acceptance, that battle is lost. It's widely used and there's nothing we can do about it, other than to avoid it in thoughtful writing and substitute clear descriptions of what is being alleged. For every editor who does that, though, there will be another who not only leaves it in, but also puts it in the headline.[ January 10, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

SusanV · **Posted:** Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:11 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
The definition, though, does not clear the term of the baggage it carries. It reads more like a political statement than a definition. It is code, usually meaning "that uppity black guy got the job I deserve." It is a term whose definition generally will be accepted only by aggrieved white men.
<hr></blockquote> I'm hardly an aggrieved white man, but I'm in Gary's camp on this one. I don't see that definition as a political screed, either. Perhaps I'm just not testy enough! :)

Guest · **Posted:** Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:46 pm

I'm with blanp. I'm mostly against the use of "reverse discrimination" in stories simply because it is jargon and not a clearly understood part of the popular lexicon. In fact, it's popular mostly for being misunderstood ... and we shouldn't have any hand in perpetuating misunderstandings. Our job is quite the opposite.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Jan 11, 2003 3:52 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
I'm with blanp. I'm mostly against the use of "reverse discrimination" in stories simply because it is jargon and not a clearly understood part of the popular lexicon.<hr></blockquote>On what planet? <blockquote>quote:<hr>In fact, it's popular mostly for being misunderstood ... and we shouldn't have any hand in perpetuating misunderstandings. Our job is quite the opposite.<hr></blockquote>How can anyone misunderstand the term? When is the last time anyone reading this seen or heard someone misunderstand the term "reverse discrimination"? What's going to perpetuate misunderstandings, if anything, isn't using that term, but working so hard to write around it.And blanp, saying that the term "reverse discrimination" is the domain of "aggrieved white men" is itself, well, discriminatory. By your logic, one could say the term "discrimination" is accepted only by angry black men who use it as code for "Whitey got the job I deserved." We all agree how ridiculous that contention is. How is what you say about "reverse discrimination" any different?If you guys are going to argue against the use of the term, do so on the term's merits, or lack thereof, as some of you have with the admittedly nebulous "weapons of mass destruction." But no one is doing that here. Instead, the message seems to be that using "reverse discrimination" isn't acceptable because it's not politically correct to tacitly acknowledge that perhaps it exists.

tim · **Posted:** Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:03 am

I am against the term because it is incorrect. I have a definition of discrimination that says "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit." What is the reverse of that? Yes, people know what is intended, however no one has ever been confused when I say "ain't." I try to keep "ain't" out the paper, though.

Guest · **Posted:** Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:09 pm

That's the bottom line ... the term doesn't help the cause of good writing or clear reading.

Guest · **Posted:** Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:31 pm

Another bad, overused, eminently bannable phrase I saw pop up a few times in Seattle-area newspapers today: "Up in arms" ... as in "A new housing development abutting historic farmland has Eastside neighbors up in arms."

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Jan 11, 2003 5:17 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
If you guys are going to argue against the use of the term, do so on the term's merits, or lack thereof, as some of you have with the admittedly nebulous "weapons of mass destruction." But no one is doing that here. Instead, the message seems to be that using "reverse discrimination" isn't acceptable because it's not politically correct to tacitly acknowledge that perhaps it exists.<hr></blockquote>That's me, all right: a prisoner of political correctness.

Rio · **Posted:** Sun Jan 12, 2003 1:11 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
That's me, all right: a prisoner of political correctness.<hr></blockquote>Attaboy. Admitting your condition is the first step on the road to recovery. :D

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:14 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Attaboy. Admitting your condition is the first step on the road to recovery. :D <hr></blockquote>Oh, shut up.

Testy Copy Editors

banned -- now, more than ever

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links