More words and phrases I despise

I haven’t been accumulating these much, probably because I stopped reading the main source, The Huffington Post.  Ergo some of these may be repeats from days of yore, but so be it, as we have new readers. I’ll give just three:

1.)  “Advancements” used instead of “advances”.   The longer version, which as far as I can see is identical to the older but shorter one, seems to be taking over (I’ll give one example below).  Why is this happening? Only, as far as I can see, because “advancesments” sounds fancier and more intellectual than the simpler “advances.” Let’s go back to the shorter word!

Here’s a Huffpost example from 2011 (click to read if you must):

2.) “Stakeholder” used as “someone with a material interest in a (usually) political or ideological discussion”. This word is not per se offensive, but is inevitably associated with wokeness, like “problematize” or “intersectional.” Particularly in science, it is used to argue (often without reasons) that some people have a say over how science is done. Example: cases in which animal bones or Native American found on government property automatically become controlled by Native American “stakeholders” from a given tribe, even if it cannot be shown that stakeholders from the tribe ever had any stake in the objects at issue (see Elizabeth Weiss’s book).  I consider the word is a canary in the coalmine of woke prose.

HOWEVER, although one sees this word frequently, I notice that those who police language now consider it offensive, as in the articles below (click to read):

From Research Impact Canada:

The second site reports why the word is bad and some suggested replacements (which nobody seems to be using):

The word stakeholder is becoming increasingly contested due to its colonial connotations. Has this hit your radar and are you trying out other words?

In November, Mark Reed posted a thought piece on the use of the word stakeholder concluding “ultimately that means re-thinking our use of the word “stakeholder”.”

The issue with the word stakeholder is that in a colonial context, a stakeholder was the person who drove a stake into the land to demarcate the land s/he was occupying/stealing from Indigenous territories. Continued use of the term can be construed as disrespectful of Indigenous people as well as perpetuating colonization and re-traumatization.

Mark’s post was followed up by a fairly lively LinkedIn discussion. The only conclusion was that everyone respected the discussion. Some options to replace stakeholder were rights holder, KMb constituents, actant and potential beneficiaries.

On November 25, Research Impact Canada (RIC) held a discussion on the use of the word stakeholder in a Dr RIC session – a monthly member driven call where RIC members craft the agenda. About 25 RIC member participants were present. In advance, I sent around Mark’s first post and the subsequent LinkedIn discussion to get everyone on the same page. Some interesting points arose in the discussion:

• Stakeholder isn’t used by some who have a community-based research practice. It comes across as corporate.
• It has a “man vibe”
• I checked with co-chair of Indigenous Council at York University, and he was not aware of the issue. It doesn’t mean it isn’t, just that it is not a discussion that has permeated all Indigenous settings.

One take away is that this is an issue beyond Indigenous contexts so an important discussion whether or not you are approaching this as decolonization.

Some options to stakeholder were

• Those in the circle

• Those who do/should care

• Partners – although that was acknowledged as having a legal definition

3.) “Dudebros”.    This is often used as a general disparagement of men in general, not just a certain type of man. If people want to disparage, say, pretentious college frat guys as “dudebros”, then say whom you’re disparaging. The term should be as offensive to men as the word “chicks” is for women.

*********

The object here is for readers to add their own phrases they don’t like (one I considered here was “it is what it is”, though it can have a real meaning, like “accept things that can’t be changed.)

Do not bother to correct me as to what you see as the “real” meanings of these words, as I am simply giving my own personal reasons to dislike them.