• RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    To phrase this differently these people are taking a term from economics used in an economic context and responding to it out of ignorance.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I disagree. This is a term which exists simultaneously in economics and in everyday speech. The everyday meaning has negative connotations whereas the economics term does not. People are responding to this conflict by trying to get economists to change their term in order to avoid the negative connotations.

      I, personally, don’t agree with this approach to language in any case. Linguistic prescriptivism of this sort is authoritarian and highly susceptible to backlash. It’s vulnerable to the mistaken belief that if someone accedes to an authority’s demands, they now agree with the authority.

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Except when you see it in “everyday speech” it is still being used in an economic context. Try using skilled or unskilled labor in a sentence where you aren’t discussing economics.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Everyday speech in an economic context but not by economists. That’s the difference. Two surgeons discussing an appendectomy over lunch is different from two random people in a bar discussing an appendectomy.

          They’re both using a term from a technical context but their understanding of the technical meaning of the term is different and the connotations are different.