251
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
251 points (99.6% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15866 readers
416 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I recently saw the phrase 'food insecurity' and while I've heard it before, I never realized how weird of a phrase it was. It's poverty, food insecurity is the definition of poverty. But because people have phones or something it doesn't count as poverty?
I never googled "food insecurity" because I could imagine what the definition was. But check out the third sentence on the health.gov page. Emphasis mine.
And look at the phrasing - "13.8 million households". How many people is that?
---
Libs love terms that they can use to make something they don't want to think about more abstract. In this case - they can avoid having to use sentences like this...
And libs don't want to seem cruel and dismissive so they would like to avoid...
Enter "food insecurity". Voilà!
No mention of troublesome words like eat, meals, money, hungry or god forbid hunger.
I think they mean that a person is food insecure if they have to consistently worry about where their next meals will come from, even if they do end up eating every meal.
As much as I hate liberals, the more lib thing to do would be to strictly define the hunger stat to something like "missed more than 3 meals in a row in the last month" or some shit to keep the stats down.
I fucking hate what libs have done to the English language. It's not meant for this kind of bullshit. It was developed by bog people, Hagar the Horrible and flea ridden dirt farmers who's boss made them speak French. We're best off when we're blunt.
People with power define how we use language, and its fucking awful how they use it to inculcate themselves further into power.
I use Passive Voice all the time at work to avoid throwing anyone under the bus. It works on middle management super well from either end
Watch your fucking mouth, those are Job Providers you're talking shit about
lmao that goes hard
I don't think it's a problem that language becomes more precise and technical over time. What is a problem is gating off understanding of precise and technical use of language behind hundreds of thousands of dollars of private education and then looking down on people for not understanding words. Imo it's a modern day expression of classism - the new version of laughing at poor people because they don't know the correct fork to use for the second course.
I'm an absolute fucking English language simp, just a giant sloppy word nerd. I am really into JRR Tolkien. I speak in a normal conversation like Matt Christman rants. I am INTERESTED in etymology. Chuds using military sounding jargon 'tactically ascertaining a potential development' and libs making therapy language part of their everyday speech is way more painful to me than anyone who is speaking 'incorrectly' due to class reasons. Those people are genuinely doing a better job at English cause they're not using words they think they should be using and instead yknow, conveying thought through language.
well not only that but purposely misusing language so those that don't know any better never will
But it's not becoming more precise and technical, it's becoming more vague, more meaningless, more flowery and yet uglier all at the same time
It sounds more like a disease that unlucky or careless people might contract than a very societal rot foisted on the most vulnerable from the sheer greed of the least vulnerable.