This could be a good thing.

I think they are mostly right to stop using medical/psychological words to label behaviors when they are not doctors or psychologists. I wonder what they will replace "ethnic cleansing" with, or what they would now call "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Ethnic cleansing seems to describe something more than "pretty violent activities" and also something that can be much less than a genocide.

We are all embiggened by their example.

impaler: AdolfOliverPanties: All words are made-up.


/the brain named itself

My brain would have called the brain "head kidney."

Now that's using your bean.

Lsherm: RoyBatty: Ethnic cleansing seems to describe something more than "pretty violent activities" and also something that can be much less than a genocide.

Just call it mass-murder based on ethnic criteria, then attribute a number to it.

But according to the wiki, for instance, it might not involve mass murder. Link

It might not involve murder at all, and conceivably might be conducted using entirely legal means.

Lsherm: RoyBatty: Lsherm: RoyBatty: Ethnic cleansing seems to describe something more than "pretty violent activities" and also something that can be much less than a genocide.

Just call it mass-murder based on ethnic criteria, then attribute a number to it.

But according to the wiki, for instance, it might not involve mass murder. Link

It might not involve murder at all, and conceivably might be conducted using entirely legal means.

Well then, call it what it is. Doesn't this prove AP's point, that the term is too vague for use in a news story?

Maybe, though again, the wiki says academics find it useful.

I have no idea -- it will be interesting to see how it is replaced.

teahadi still ok??

Those words are fine to use, irregardless of what the AP says.

Newspeak doubleplusungood.

*jedi hand wave*

These are not the human and civil rights issues you're looking for
might I suggest War on Christmas?

I think everything intelligent that needs to be said has already been said, so I'm just dropping in to say hello!

Homophobia IS a pretty stupid word.

Fine, but what happens when the "anti-gay" folks demand to be identified as "pro-traditional families" or some shiat? Just like pro-life/anti-choice, there's already an inherent bias in how you brand a group or an individual. Writing around what they are doesn't inform anyone. You might as well just do away with all descriptors and adjectives altogether.

R.I.P.

Santa Claus and Jesus Christ

LDM90: Homophobia IS a pretty stupid word.

you sound homophobiaphobic

Homophobia suggests fear. My own experiences with those that would be called Homophobes aren't afraid of gays or catching the ghey, it's an unwarranted and irrational sense of revulsion combined with the pathological need to be able to try and hurt those "beneath" them. I think psychopath is probably a better term for a homophobe.

not the same as a homophone, either, which is what firefox spell check is telling me to use.

I agree with LDM90. homopobia is one of the gayest words ever. The first time I heard it I thought "now why would humans be afraid of other humans in general."

Three Crooked Squirrels: Well, "undocumented immigrants" doesn't appear in the article (unless I missed it). But I have a problem with that, too. The right's use of "illegals" makes me cringe, as it is a clear attempt to dehumanize. The left's use of "undocumented immigrant" also bothers me, as they are more than undocumented, they are here illegally. Call them "illegal immigrants". It's what they are without connotation. Then fix the farking problem.

Im liberal, vote democrat for the most part, and would be fine with open borders.

There is nothing wrong with the term illegal alien. Illegal immigrant rules out illegal non-immigrants and is too specific. Illegal for short is fine and doesn't bother me.

Wasn't "ethnic cleansing" a euphemism employed by the Bosnian Serbs to make their genocidal activities sound more palatable in some kind of bizarre way? It's since become as much of a pejorative as the word genocide itself, but I can agree that it probably ought not be used by reporters.

gadian: Homophobia suggests fear. My own experiences with those that would be called Homophobes aren't afraid of gays or catching the ghey, it's an unwarranted and irrational sense of revulsion combined with the pathological need to be able to try and hurt those "beneath" them. I think psychopath is probably a better term for a homophobe.

not the same as a homophone, either, which is what firefox spell check is telling me to use.

fear of those who are different and/or what allowing them to live in society as they want is what leads to the irrational anger.

skinink: Those words are fine to use, irregardless of what the AP says.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Well, "undocumented immigrants" doesn't appear in the article (unless I missed it). But I have a problem with that, too. The right's use of "illegals" makes me cringe, as it is a clear attempt to dehumanize. The left's use of "undocumented immigrant" also bothers me, as they are more than undocumented, they are here illegally. Call them "illegal immigrants". It's what they are without connotation. Then fix the farking problem.

The correct term is illegal alien. A foreigner is just someone who is a citizen of another state within the same country. Immigrant suggests that they have already forfeited their original citizenship in their nation of origin.

By specifying illegal aliens (the term for someone who is a citizen of another sovereign nation, illegally trespassing in another nation), you avoid confusion and look less ignorant.

Hobodeluxe: Newspeak doubleplusungood.

*jedi hand wave*

These are not the human and civil rights issues you're looking for
might I suggest War on Christmas?

Except that the AP is eliminating the Newspeak terms. The "-phobia" for bigots is a stupid development that doesn't adequately describe individuals. Anti-Islamic bigot is a much more accurate and useful term than Islamophobic. The term "undocumented immigrant", likewise, is an attempt at a euphemistic treadmill, sacrificing a term that some people find offensive with an less exact term that's "nicer".

Good. "Homo" = same, "phobia" = fear. Thus "homophobia" = fear of sameness. That makes no damn sense, unless it's about some lady who was afraid someone else would show up at a party wearing the same dress as her. I look forward to seeing this meaningless term pass away into history.

Smackledorfer: Three Crooked Squirrels: Well, "undocumented immigrants" doesn't appear in the article (unless I missed it). But I have a problem with that, too. The right's use of "illegals" makes me cringe, as it is a clear attempt to dehumanize. The left's use of "undocumented immigrant" also bothers me, as they are more than undocumented, they are here illegally. Call them "illegal immigrants". It's what they are without connotation. Then fix the farking problem.

Im liberal, vote democrat for the most part, and would be fine with open borders.

There is nothing wrong with the term illegal alien. Illegal immigrant rules out illegal non-immigrants and is too specific. Illegal for short is fine and doesn't bother me.

Not to derail or threadjack this, but are in favor of a strong safety net too?

Who said this:

Open immigration can't coexist with a strong social safety net; if you're going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can't make that offer global.

Paul Krugman or Milton Friedman?

If your chosen term manages to offend at least 2 groups of people, it is appropriate.

Wait til they hear about the phrase "civil war".

Bonanza Jellybean: Fine, but what happens when the "anti-gay" folks demand to be identified as "pro-traditional families" or some shiat? Just like pro-life/anti-choice, there's already an inherent bias in how you brand a group or an individual. Writing around what they are doesn't inform anyone. You might as well just do away with all descriptors and adjectives altogether.

The comparison with abortion isn't an accurate one because, frankly, terms used for the sides in the abortion debate are actually rather accurate in describing their position: the pro-life side believes that a fetus has the same moral worth as any born human and has an entitled right to life; the pro-choice side believes that a fetus is merely a group of cells and it's perfectly legitimate for the mother to choose how she deals with the bunch of cells within her body and no one else's business.

I also applaud the abandonment of "undocumented workers". That is a euphemism that is as bad as "pre-titled car" or "specially-abled." Call them what they are, either "illegal immigrants" or if two words are too much for you, "illegals."

While they are not all evil folks who should be treated as such they did in fact break the law and should pay the consequences for that action. Yes, I know, some came here as kids. Even they technically commited a crime by staying here after they turned 18 (they age at which they become an adult responsible for their own action and thus accountable for being here illegally). This is of course a minor crime which should be forgiven if they serve in the military or complete college in the US (on their own dime). As for the adults who come here illegally they should all be deported immediately, do not pass go, do not collect free benefits. They broke into an occupied country, no different from a person that breaks into an occupied home in the dead of night.

Bleebsnort.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Smackledorfer: Three Crooked Squirrels: Well, "undocumented immigrants" doesn't appear in the article (unless I missed it). But I have a problem with that, too. The right's use of "illegals" makes me cringe, as it is a clear attempt to dehumanize. The left's use of "undocumented immigrant" also bothers me, as they are more than undocumented, they are here illegally. Call them "illegal immigrants". It's what they are without connotation. Then fix the farking problem.

Im liberal, vote democrat for the most part, and would be fine with open borders.

There is nothing wrong with the term illegal alien. Illegal immigrant rules out illegal non-immigrants and is too specific. Illegal for short is fine and doesn't bother me.

I never understood what was so bad about "Mexicans" in the first place.

You know the answer, of course, but you're either a bigot yourself or trying to make a self-congratulatory point: Because there are individuals who are legitimately bothered by illegal immigration regardless of country of origin who don't care about legal immigrants.

Lsherm: Three Crooked Squirrels: Well, "undocumented immigrants" doesn't appear in the article (unless I missed it). But I have a problem with that, too. The right's use of "illegals" makes me cringe, as it is a clear attempt to dehumanize. The left's use of "undocumented immigrant" also bothers me, as they are more than undocumented, they are here illegally. Call them "illegal immigrants". It's what they are without connotation. Then fix the farking problem.

"Undocumented immigrants" is a bullshiat term because it implies the legality of the immigrant is simply a matter of paperwork, and it's not. If they were actually documented, most of them wouldn't be immigrants anymore, because they'd be deported. Why? Because they are here illegally.

That said, I'm an amnesty supporter.


You sound confused.

The AP Stylebook is a good example of journalists taking the bias out of news reporting. A lot of thought goes into it. It's worth reading if you are someone who doesn't hate words.

Homophobia is never used correctly anyway. These people hate gays... this isn't fear, it is hatred. I know it's fun to brand these bigoted sh*tbags as being afraid of gays, but when you do that, you fail at understanding the enemy. I believe some of the bigots are afraid, but I think most are filled with a (frequently religious) programmed hatred. So anti-gay is actually a better description.