|
Why the weasel word problematic should be banned
[LATimes] Where does the LA Times get these people?They wanted to write for the New York Times but the spouse was from Laficornia... For the last few years, reasonable people of various ideological leanings have been lamenting the scourge that is the word “problematic.” Cropping up particularly in online discussions about social justice and unacknowledged privilege, “problematic” is sort of like “utilize” for the Smuggy McSanctipants set. It’s an unnecessary expansion on a better, simpler word, a piece of linguistic overreach favored by those who are trying to sound smarter and more sure of themselves than they are. For instance, the augmented-reality game “Pokemon Go” has been attacked for a lot of sins, such as excluding people with limited mobility and inserting itself into inappropriate locations. For those who can’t come up with such specifics but still think the game portends the end of the world, “problematic” covers a lot of bases. It does? Problematic is a word similar to conundrum. It's just another way of expressing the word problem as an adjective.
Urban Dictionary, that indispensable compendium of vernacular terms and usages, defines “problematic” as “a corporate-academic weasel word used mainly by people who sense that something may be oppressive, but don’t want to do any actual thinking about what the problem is or why it exists.” Waitaminnit! Describing something an individual calls a problem as problematic is not thinking? In my estimation if you write something -- anything -- you are thinking, and it does not matter what words you use. Writing is always thinking.
"Allow me to erudit!" What’s more, as I’ve observed it, “problematic” tends to get used in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Problem is a base word. When studying Slavic languages you get used to the notion of base words. All of their differing versions mean nothing except a means of properly expressing a thought through using the correct syntax and spelling. So it is with the word problematic. It is the adjectival (See what I did there?) version of the base word problem. It means nothing more nor less than the base word, but for its length and spelling. Feel free to ponder the differences between Slavic language versions of "problematic." What would be the fine difference between "otproblematic" and "izproblematic?" "Pereproblematic" would span whole regions of problematism. "Pereproblematiruyushchi" would perhaps be a continuing problematic span? Maybe if it's been rendered problematic it would be "problematirovanni." If it happened suddenly it could be "zaproblematirovanni." Chekhov and Tolstoi really missed out when problematic wasn't a part of the Russian language. We don’t hear “problematic” applied to police shootings of unarmed black men or to legislation preventing transgender people from using certain bathrooms. (The operative description of those issues would be, respectively, “actual problem” and “stupid.”) We certainly don’t hear it when the topic is international finance or the NFL because most people who use “problematic” can’t be bothered to follow such things. In the last few months the word has been applied, with some fanfare, to Calvin Trillin, who published a poem about Chinese food in the New Yorker that was deemed racist, and to Taylor Swift’s new boyfriend, whom fans are unhappy about because ... I have no idea. Important to note here, since she brought up the subject: Meghan is white. I didn't even have to Google a mug shot because I knew she was white based on her name and the subject matter. Meghan is one of those female small tyrants who hate her own racial class so much that if she saw jihadis bearing down on her armed with AKs and bomb belts, she would break out the old pompoms and pleated skirt to act as cheerleader, right up until the moment the first round struck her in the chest. As she lay bleeding out, she would never blame the f*ckers who shot her. It will always be her political opponents who will be blamed for her personal demise. That is what she wants for her readers. She is a petty, fascist-worshiping, left-leaning tyrant who has had a hand in opening the gates to let the barbarians in. And that, my friends, is problematic. Calvin Trillin? He's still alive? He's so old, he was God's grandmother's prom date. And he wrote a poem about chop suey or chow mein or General Tso's chicken that was published in The New Yorker? They still publish The New Yorker? And people look at it, even without Charles Addams cartoons? Wow. I'm snowed. “Problematic” as the rallying cry of sanctimonious posturing is nothing new. In 2013, Gawker named it one of the worst words of the year. If you can't agree with Gawker's opinion who can you agree with? The satirical Tumblr site, everythingsaproblem, hilariously sends up “call out culture” with pitch-perfect deconstructions of identity politics that require “problematic.” Example: According to everythingsaproblem, the type of cuddling known as spooning, which one culture critic called a “fundamentally sexist arrangement,” represents the “deeply problematic way that power structures propagate themselves.” Those attempting to control words and thought are the sanctimonious ones. Power structures utilize the spoon position to propagate? I thought they used the missionary position? Until recently, my problem with “problematic” mostly had to do with the moralizing, condescending and reliably humorless people using it. I actually never keyed in on it before. I occasionally got wrought up about people who utilized constructs like "myself and..." someone else in the nominative case, or people who use "in order to" instead of just "to." Now that I'm alerted, though, I'll keep a lookout for moralizing, condescending and reliably humorless people writing about it. But when I thought more about it (and, yes, I recognize that sitting around thinking about “problematic” might itself be called problematic), I realized what we really need to do is look at so-called problematic things through a different lens: not as something we've labeled and figured out but as the exact opposite. That would mean unlabeled and unconsidered? Having considered once, can one unconsider? I suppose it's possible, though men couldn't do it. I think it remains a woman's prerogative to unconsider. Think about it: I just did. Much of what is deemed problematic is really just complicated, it's interesting. I totally disagree. Have you ever actually read anything Calvin Trillin's written? I thought not. There's a reason God's grandmother left the prom with that other guy. Of course, that was several Big Bangs ago, and nobody talks about it... In a less fragile and reactionary culture we might call these things “worthy of discussion.” In a slightly more Bolshevist culture they'd just shoot you. But discussion — you know, where people take turns talking and listening — has gone out of style. When one side wants to use the media, the courts and the legislatures to impose their personal political views and social conditions on others, the need for conversation is over. And so, conversations will not get back into "style" until tyrants like Meghan back off for good from attacking their political opponents. Myself and lots of other people find people like Meghan Oppresive™. Instead of talk we have the indignant tweet, the Tumblr account filled with reaction gifs of celebrities rolling their eyes and, I only look at Tumblr for the dirty pictures. of course, the mic drop, which signals that whatever was just said is the final word on the matter and no one need respond or dissent. With so many pre-packaged, automated responses to choose from, there scarcely seems any need to go to the trouble of having an actual conversation. The only thing Meghan has gotten right in this whole missive. The problem for Meghan is that she lacks self awareness sufficient to recognize she and her ilk don't want a conversation. They want silence, submission and surrender to their political peccadilloes. They attack language usage, as if it were their own personal preserve to make decisions they have no business or right to make. Except that actual conversations can be fun. Crafting cogent arguments is generally more stimulating than just lobbing the “problematic” grenade and calling it a day. As powerful as any one word can be, it could be even more powerful when it’s connected to others to form sentences. “Problematic” isn’t an idea. It’s a mask for a sad lack of ideas. Allow me to introduce the top Sad Sack of Ideas, Megan Daum. Isn't she great? [Golf clap] Posted by: badanov 2016-07-24 |
||
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=462688 |