 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007"X-challenged"
[Teranews.Free server is too busy to accept my posts] PC language creep: >From Deb Schinder's _WXPNews_ newsletter Vol. 7, #4 - Jan 30, 2007 - Issue #261 http://www.wxpnews.com/ "Yes, in some jurisdictions, police work in pairs and the officer in the passenger seat operates the equipment, but in most smaller departments and many large, budget-challenged ones, two-officer cars is a luxury that's unaffordable." "Budget-challenged". How about "under-budgeted" or "insufficiently budgeted" or just plain "poor"? -- Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http:// dilbertblog.typepad.com/ >[Teranews.Free server is too busy to accept my posts] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >"Budget-challenged". How about "under-budgeted" or "insufficiently >budgeted" or just plain "poor"? While "budget challenged" seems too trendy, neither "under-budgeted" or "insufficiently budgeted" seem to convey the message intended. Both terms seem to imply that the *budget* is at fault, and that the drafters of the budget made a mistake. The problem would probably be that funds were not available to create a budget that allows for two-officer cars. "Under-funded budgets" would be closer to the intended meaning. Normally, budgets are set based on the funds made available. The budget is a plan of how funds available to the department will be spent. Without the necessary funds being allocated to the police department, the resulting budget may not be able to include the two-officer cars. Is this a "PC" usage, though, as you suggest in your first line? Is "budget-challenged" used to suggest something more acceptable than another phrase? Or, is this just a misidentification of the problem?  SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>[Teranews.Free server is too busy to accept my posts] >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > budgets" would be closer to the intended meaning. Normally, > budgets are set based on the funds made available. There is no clue in the story about how the budgets Deb's talking about were set, just that they didn't allow two-officer cars, so this objection is based on speculation. Budgets are also set based on the priorities of the department setting the budget. Notice that whenever a Republican is president of the USA, guns get the lion's share of the budget and butter get's the mouse's. That's a different kind of budget-challenged/ > The budget is a plan of how funds available to the department will > be spent. Without the necessary funds being allocated to the > police department, the resulting budget may not be able to include > the two-officer cars. Pure speculation, but I know that you offer it as pap because you're certain that I am incapable of thinking of this kind of fundamental bullshit on my own. Such parternalitic crap you dish out, Ton. > Is this a "PC" usage, though, as you suggest in your first line? You obviously don't understand what "PC creep" is. Therefore, you are either vocabulary-challenged or intellectually challenged or both. Those are just nice ways of saying "ignorant" and "stupid". There's no need to carry that kind of language into talk about budget allocations, however. Budgets don't have feelings that can get hurt. But, some to think of it, neither do you, do you. At least, that's what you claim. But you know I think that you're veracity-challenged as well. > Is "budget-challenged" used to suggest something more acceptable > than another phrase? Or, is this just a misidentification of the > problem? You're just spitting into the wind. Dry your face off. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>[Teranews.Free server is too busy to accept my posts] >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >about were set, just that they didn't allow two-officer cars, so this >objection is based on speculation. I think that "probably set" does indicate that speculation is included. > Budgets are also set based on the >priorities of the department setting the budget. Yes, but they are primarily determined by the amount of funding that is available to be budgeted. >> The budget is a plan of how funds available to the department will >> be spent. Without the necessary funds being allocated to the >> police department, the resulting budget may not be able to include >> the two-officer cars. > >Pure speculation, What is speculative about that statement other than what is specifically noted (as in "may be") as speculation? > but I know that you offer it as pap because you're >certain that I am incapable of thinking of this kind of fundamental >bullshit on my own. Such parternalitic crap you dish out, Ton. No, it was actually a quite objective offering that was intended to expand the examination of the use of the term. >> Is this a "PC" usage, though, as you suggest in your first line? > >You obviously don't understand what "PC creep" is. Again, I ask "Is this an example of PC terminology?". If so, how so? If you have a point to made, make it. Explain why you think this is "PC creep" rather than just misuse of terms. > Therefore, you are >either vocabulary-challenged or intellectually challenged or both. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >what you claim. But you know I think that you're veracity-challenged >as well. >> Is "budget-challenged" used to suggest something more acceptable >> than another phrase? Or, is this just a misidentification of the >> problem? > >You're just spitting into the wind. Dry your face off. You might try explaining why you feel this is PC creep rather than misidentification of the problem. It's a technique often used in discussions that is sometimes more interesting than just blowing smoke by attacking the person who offers a different line of reasoning than you have offered. I honestly don't feel that the statement you cite is an example of "PC creep" in any way. Here are some definitions of "political correctness" from the web: http://tinyurl.com/2hqgkv How does the statement you cite fit into any of those definitions? If you have a different definition of political correctness into which the statement fits, then present it. To the best of my knowledge, a word or phrase choice that is not to the reader's liking is not an example of "PC creep". Pretend that the comments made by me in this exchange of posts were made by someone other than me, and give a reasonable rebuttal dealing with what was said, and not who said it. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL On 30 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > I honestly don't feel that the statement you cite is an example > of "PC creep" in any way. Here are some definitions of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > To the best of my knowledge, a word or phrase choice that is not > to the reader's liking is not an example of "PC creep". I think it could be called PC creep if by that one means "the colonisation of unrelated fields by phrase-forms originating in PC language". If some management type started spouting a crock about "budgetary processes achieving self-awareness", one might speak of "psycho- babble creep". That is, the concept is not in itself psycho-babble, but it's adopted the clothing of that language (for whatever purpose). I'd agree, though, that if "PC creep" is supposed to mean what I think you've taken it to mean -- actual PC usage, rather than simply adopting PC-type phrasing -- "budget-challenged" doesn't count since it's not, in itself, a PC term. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 30 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > simply adopting PC-type phrasing -- "budget-challenged" doesn't > count since it's not, in itself, a PC term. You've hit the nails squarely on the head, Harv. Too bad Tony missed and hit his thumbs. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >On 30 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >adopting PC-type phrasing -- "budget-challenged" doesn't count since >it's not, in itself, a PC term. The paragraph cited: "Yes, in some jurisdictions, police work in pairs and the officer in the passenger seat operates the equipment, but in most smaller departments and many large, budget-challenged ones, two-officer cars is a luxury that's unaffordable." is remarkably free of PC influence. It states a problem in straight-up terms without any PC waffling about. If the statement was: "Yes, in some jurisdictions, police work in pairs and the officer in the passenger seat operates the equipment, but in most smaller departments and many large, budget-challenged ones, two-officer cars are considered to be resource-wasteful and not contributory to the maximization of the human assets available." it would be an example of "PC creep" because it justifies the effect of the problem (lack of budget) by making it a benefit (elimination of a resource-wasteful condition) in order not to offend a group (tight-fisted managers who don't adequately allocate funds to a department) in terms that make the negative factors to be positives. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL On 30 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote >> I think it could be called PC creep if by that one means "the >> colonisation of unrelated fields by phrase-forms originating in >> PC language". -snip- >> I'd agree, though, that if "PC creep" is supposed to mean what >> I think you've taken it to mean -- actual PC usage, rather than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is remarkably free of PC influence. It states a problem in > straight-up terms without any PC waffling about. I agree with that entirely. But I still think that one might conceivably use the term "X- creep" to describe what might be better-termed "X-style creep": the adoption of phrasing which originated in X usage (rather than restricting it to the creep of *actual* X usage). I don't think the following statements are particularly contentious, and I can imagine describing it as a form of "PC (style) creep": 1. The use of "whatever-challenged" to describe something which lacks "whatever" began life in politically-correct circles to avoid offence or to cast things in a positive light. 2. The use of "whatever-challenged", however, is now found where it is not used to avoid offence or for other politically-correct purposes, but merely as a descriptive form. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van [...] > The paragraph cited: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (tight-fisted managers who don't adequately allocate funds to a > department) in terms that make the negative factors to be positives. But what's interesting here is that word "challenged". A "challenge" is always (for conversational values of "always") made out to be quite a good thing, not a bad one. In pep-talk-speak it was given a positive emotional loading rather than its original negative one, and that usage caught on. That's why it was later adopted to replace "disadvantaged", "handicapped", etc. I agree that the original sentence as a whole was pretty well neutral and factual; but Franke's right that the injection of a characteristically "PC" form of words is worthy of note. I think this is a sign of the beginning of the collapse of its euphemistic function -- the inevitable fate of all euphemisms. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >[...] >> The paragraph cited: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >a sign of the beginning of the collapse of its euphemistic function -- >the inevitable fate of all euphemisms. Certainly "budget-challenged" is less objectionable to some - and, hence, somewhat PC - than "under-budgeted". It does what other PC terms do: it softens to make the term palatable to more. Still, the question remains in my mind about the true nature of the problem. Is the problem "under-budgeting" or "under-funding"? Since I feel that the problem is really under-funding, I think the mistake is one of miscategorizing the problem rather than softening the problem with the use of a more palatable term. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >[...] >> The paragraph cited: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >a sign of the beginning of the collapse of its euphemistic function -- >the inevitable fate of all euphemisms. Very true. It has just occurred to me that I can't even remember what we used to say before "humo(u)r-challenged" became first a knowing jibe at PCglish and then a standard expression. SignatureArchie Valparaiso Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent. > cybercypher <dontbother@easypeasy.com> wrote: >>> "CyberCypher" <CyberCypher@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>> "under-budgeted" or "insufficiently budgeted" seem to convey the >>> message intended. You have no more idea of what "the message intended" was than I do. Only Deb knows for sure. >>> Both terms seem to imply that the *budget* is at fault, >>> and that the drafters of the budget made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe they had other priorities. But saying anything about that would be pointless speculation. Good rationalizers can come up with any number of excuses for anything. >>> The problem would probably be that funds were not available to >>> create a budget that allows for two-officer cars. "Under-funded >>> budgets" would be closer to the intended meaning. Normally, >>> budgets are set based on the funds made available. Because police departments are normally items on the local municipality's or county's or state's budget, "under-budgeted" is an adequate term and means "under-funded" to the police department. The police department doesn't under-budget its budget. It may under-fund some items on its budget, that's true, but there's nothing in my terms that indicates that the police are at fault. A "budget- challenged" large police department is most likely a department that has not been given enough money by the larger bureaucratic structure of which it is a part. >>There is no clue in the story about how the budgets Deb's talking >>about were set, just that they didn't allow two-officer cars, so >>this objection is based on speculation. > > I think that "probably set" does indicate that speculation is > included. I'll take you at your word and tell you that you never used that phrase. Therefore, your statement is non sequitur. >> Budgets are also set based on the priorities >> of the department setting the budget. > > Yes, but they are primarily determined by the amount of funding > that is available to be budgeted. Projection and even more speculation. After budget-makers learn how much money they have to play with, they don't all sit down to the same list of priorities. If they did, they would all come up with radically similar budgets. >>> The budget is a plan of how funds available to the department >>> will be spent. Without the necessary funds being allocated to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What is speculative about that statement other than what is > specifically noted (as in "may be") as speculation? I believe your specific phrase was "may not be", but I'm aware that a lack of discriminatory ability can turn a negative into a positive. >> but I know that you offer it as pap because you're >>certain that I am incapable of thinking of this kind of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, it was actually a quite objective offering that was intended > to expand the examination of the use of the term. What term? Budget? Budgeting? I asked about "budget-challenged", not about how budgets work. I know enough about that to make such a fundamental expansion of the term and the process unnecessary. >>> Is this a "PC" usage, though, as you suggest in your first line? >> >>You obviously don't understand what "PC creep" is. > > Again, I ask "Is this an example of PC terminology?". Your question is just as non sequitur now as it was in the previous post. I didn't say that it was "PC terminology" but an example of "PC creep", i.e., PC forms such as "X-challenged" are now being incorporated into the everyday language of people who have no need to use them because they are not dealing with topics that warrant terms that imitate PC usages. > If so, how so? If you have a point to made, make it. > Explain why you think this is "PC creep" rather than > just misuse of terms. Well, maybe you do suffer from intellectual bends after all. >> Therefore, you are >>either vocabulary-challenged or intellectually challenged or both. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > smoke by attacking the person who offers a different line of > reasoning than you have offered. If you were offering any line of "reasoning" other than pointless rationalization, I would sit up and listen (er, read). > I honestly don't feel that the statement you cite is an example of > "PC creep" in any way. You don't even know what "PC (language) creep" is, so how can you make such a bold and baseless assertion? I wasn't aware that "PC (language) creep" was a term in the mainstream of American English. I haven't defined it and you haven't defined it. Therefore, we are, as always, speaking at cross purposes. > Here are some definitions of "political > correctness" from the web: http://tinyurl.com/2hqgkv > > How does the statement you cite fit into any of those definitions? > If you have a different definition of political correctness into > which the statement fits, then present it. I don't know what's wrong with your frontal lobe [Sorry, Ton, but a Cooperish post is just what it is, a linguistic barrel of monkeys, and must be dealt with as something written by you. I'm not a post- modernist and I do assign value to the intent of the author, as old- school as it might be to do so, but I didn't say that "budget- challenged" was "PC", merely that it is a term that has borrowed "PC" usage and style. Young Joey, for example, was doing the same thing when he used his version of AAVE. I never thought that he had changed culture or skin color, though. Did you? He was just dressing up for Halloween because he always mistook his costume for his everyday street clothes, just like the guy who mistook his wife for a hat. > To the best of my knowledge, a word or phrase choice that is not > to the reader's liking is not an example of "PC creep". Aha! You have now defined what *you* mean by "PC creep", but that's not what I mean by the term. So who's blowing smoke? You're projecting again: you think you understand what I'm talking about, so you assume that your criticisms are just and accurate. But you're wrong. You're working purely with your own assumptions. > Pretend that the comments made by me in this exchange of posts > were made by someone other than me, and give a reasonable rebuttal > dealing with what was said, and not who said it. Had someone other than you written these posts, I wouldn't have bothered to reply at all. Consider yourself complimented. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.