Just because it’s a term you learned in school doesn’t mean it’s not used to hold people back. The term is used to imply that people who aren’t skilled don’t deserve a living wage and lots of voters fall for it and push the narrative that if you flip burgers you don’t deserve to pay rent on time and go to the movies on the same month.
What a wild comment. You confirm that the phrase itself isn’t the issue, but rather how some people are misusing it for their own gain, and yet you manage to put the blame on the phrase itself.
What would you expect to happen if the phrase changed to something else? That people wouldn’t twist and change its meaning to fit their needs? Is your plan to keep changing the phrase each time it gets misused, eventually leading to a scenario where the phrase and its meaning are completely separate?
In scenarios such as this, its better to spread the word about the original intention of the phrase, rather than blaming it.
You are having a purely emotional response to scientific jargon. What are you trying to do here? Nothing you state is true within the context of the field.
You are having a purely emotional response to scientific jargon.
We’re humans who have emotional responses to things, and we should be cognizant of that when choosing our words. We should also be aware of how bad actors may use our words to manipulate public opinion via those emotions.
We don’t use things like mongoloid or crippled anymore even though they were once considered perfectly acceptable medical terms. Unskilled is inherently derogatory, and the thesaurus is offering alternatives such as fundamental, foundational, or generalized. I like generalized labor the best so far, because it contrasts perfectly with specialized.
It’s an emotional response to point out how a word has been used to keep people from being paid what they’re worth? I think it’s an emotional response to cling so hard to a word that could very easily be changed and hurt no one.
It’s an emotional response to point out how a word has been used to keep people from being paid what they’re worth?
No, why do you think that is the case? Most wages are paid out based on what the market fr that job pays not based on whether it is skilled or unskilled. My brother makes more in sales (unskilled) than my buddy who is a neurosurgeon.
I think it’s an emotional response to cling so hard to a word that could very easily be changed and hurt no one.
It’s scientific jargon. If you are having an emotional response to it that’s not the fault if the field.
No, why do you think that is the case? Most wages are paid out based on what the market fr that job pays not based on whether it is skilled or unskilled. My brother makes more in sales (unskilled) than my buddy who is a neurosurgeon.
Because I’ve heard people use it as an excuse for why minimum wage shouldn’t cover bills and they vote accordingly. Language matters.
It’s scientific jargon. If you are having an emotional response to it that’s not the fault if the field.
Scientific jargon can and has changed to better represent what they’re talking about no reason this can’t either unless that makes some people too… emotional.
Just because it’s a term you learned in school doesn’t mean it’s not used to hold people back. The term is used to imply that people who aren’t skilled don’t deserve a living wage and lots of voters fall for it and push the narrative that if you flip burgers you don’t deserve to pay rent on time and go to the movies on the same month.
What a wild comment. You confirm that the phrase itself isn’t the issue, but rather how some people are misusing it for their own gain, and yet you manage to put the blame on the phrase itself.
What would you expect to happen if the phrase changed to something else? That people wouldn’t twist and change its meaning to fit their needs? Is your plan to keep changing the phrase each time it gets misused, eventually leading to a scenario where the phrase and its meaning are completely separate?
In scenarios such as this, its better to spread the word about the original intention of the phrase, rather than blaming it.
Good news don’t travel so fast. Changing the term to something harder to make derogatory would be a much better solution.
You are having a purely emotional response to scientific jargon. What are you trying to do here? Nothing you state is true within the context of the field.
We’re humans who have emotional responses to things, and we should be cognizant of that when choosing our words. We should also be aware of how bad actors may use our words to manipulate public opinion via those emotions.
We don’t use things like mongoloid or crippled anymore even though they were once considered perfectly acceptable medical terms. Unskilled is inherently derogatory, and the thesaurus is offering alternatives such as fundamental, foundational, or generalized. I like generalized labor the best so far, because it contrasts perfectly with specialized.
It’s an emotional response to point out how a word has been used to keep people from being paid what they’re worth? I think it’s an emotional response to cling so hard to a word that could very easily be changed and hurt no one.
No, why do you think that is the case? Most wages are paid out based on what the market fr that job pays not based on whether it is skilled or unskilled. My brother makes more in sales (unskilled) than my buddy who is a neurosurgeon.
It’s scientific jargon. If you are having an emotional response to it that’s not the fault if the field.
Because I’ve heard people use it as an excuse for why minimum wage shouldn’t cover bills and they vote accordingly. Language matters.
Scientific jargon can and has changed to better represent what they’re talking about no reason this can’t either unless that makes some people too… emotional.
There is a reason doctors don’t call patients the r slur anymore. even if it started scientific that is not at all how it is being used.
That is a way better example than I was planning on using if this kept going thanks