Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That’s the type.

I kind of feel sorry for them, but it doesn’t halt the cringe.

 Flinty wrote:
Seems like the Irish stole it from Scotland/ northern England, Gaelicized it, and the. Scottish Gaelic nicked it back again. So I think it’s pretty fair game anywhere in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic

If it’s good enough for Burns, it’s good enough for me.

Unexpectedly, it comes from Scots and northern English, not Scottish Gaelic, so is actually a word of English origin (Scots being a language that derives from Old English with lowland Scotland being an Anglo-Saxon area historically).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Yet I only ever hear it uttered in Oirish Themed Pubs. Usually by braying chinless idiots. Who are most definitely unaware of the word’s origins.

Well, you do live "daarn saaarf" so that probably explains it

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Seems like the Irish stole it from Scotland/ northern England, Gaelicized it, and the. Scottish Gaelic nicked it back again. So I think it’s pretty fair game anywhere in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic

If it’s good enough for Burns, it’s good enough for me.

Yet I only ever hear it uttered in Oirish Themed Pubs. Usually by braying chinless idiots. Who are most definitely unaware of the word’s origins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IronRose wrote:
two terms from the zoomer lexicon Gyatt and mewing turns my spine into a pretzel from cringe.

I don’t think I’ve heard either.

Though I also cringe when someone has made their fondness for anime their entire personality.

I mean, anime is fine. Whilst I can’t get on with it, I can see the appeal and of course have no issues at all with folks who adore it.

Watch it all day every day? Still no problem.

But when it becomes your entire life, from speech to style to interactions with other people? Maybe get out a bit more.

Ahtman wrote:You talking about that kid who Naruto runs through the hallway between classes?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That’s the type.

I kind of feel sorry for them, but it doesn’t halt the cringe.

There's a word for them, but it's apparently a protected class and that word gets autocorrected by this forum...

Bran Dawri wrote:
My worst offenders are managementspeak, and (related) overly fancy job titles.
Examples: Barrista, vocalist, executive assistant.
You're a barkeep, singer, and secretary, respectively. There's nothing wrong with any of those, they're perfectly respectable - even honourable - occupations, but being as Dutch as they come, I have an aversion to pretention.

And the only reason to fancify the job title like that is to either be a pretentious gakker or to pretend you don't think those jobs are demeaning when you clearly do. Neither is acceptable to me.

While they are admittedly often used incorrectly, none of those terms you have mentioned are actually interchangeable. It's not just 'management speak' - Singers and vocalists have different skillsets, secretaries and executive assistants have different levels of responsibility, and a barista and a bartender are completely different things.

 Ahtman wrote:
You talking about that kid who Naruto runs through the hallway between classes?

They all do that now.

Ah. Just noticed this thread. How about words that are misused? I am sick to death of every other sportscaster and many others in the US saying 'myself; instead of 'me'.

THEY AREN'T INTERCHANGEABLE!

'She took myself to the store.'
That bad thing happened to myself.'

Arrrggh!

On a side not, I also hate the term 'price point'. Just say 'price', please.

Two words.

Human. Capital.

It just seems such an apocalyptic, late stage capitalism “you are not people you are my asset” term.

Like how the US originating software I book my holiday at work terms it as “Absence”.

Thats right up there with 'human resources'
I am not a resource to be used up for their benefit

Normalcy

Defined as - Anything you still can’t handle is your own problem.

Not exactly the word, but what it’s come to entail online.

“Reaction”.

Why….why would I want to watch other people watching something when I could always, y’know, go and watch that thing that they’re watching for myself, and put my own perfectly good mind to good use to figure out what I think of it.

It’s like a “live studio audience” whooping and cheering and laughing like trained chimps, in case the home audience isn’t able to spot when something was at least meant to be funny, or when someone walked into a room - but somehow worse.

Because unlike a live studio audience*, these “reactions” are always carefully rehearsed and scripted, not to mention overblown and over exaggerated.

This is incredibly annoying when I’m trying to find a trailer I want to watch, and Mighty Algorithmo vomits up a bunch of “reacts” first.

*though I have been part of a live studio audience for QI, including when Corey Taylor out of Slipknot turned up. But give that’s a panel show known for audience interaction it’s not as if the panel members are pretending we’re not there**

**unlike Chandler in Friends, the supposed “funny one”, except none of his fellow cast ever actually laugh at his jokes. Mostly because said jokes, like the show, aren’t in fact funny.

There was a elementary school teacher talking about the kids using the word "chat" to refer to others when talking to each other because so many watch streamers and streamers refer to the viewers while playing.

That’s a curious evolution of language, I’d say. Not sure it annoys me personally, but I’m not a teacher. And don’t have kids.

Kids are great for watching language evolve

Playing Fortnite with my son, and when we come across opponents, the call is “kids kids kids”. He’s 11. It’s adorable

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Because unlike a live studio audience*, these “reactions” are always carefully rehearsed and scripted, not to mention overblown and over exaggerated.

I find this to be so true. . . For some odd reason youtube has decided it's a good idea to put music "reaction" videos onto my randomly play next feature. You really, REAAAAAAALLLY expect me to believe that you, the silly youtuber has never ever heard any song by Slayer, much less 2 or 3 of their most famous works? You really expect me to believe you've never ever ever heard of Rage against the Machine? Give me a F-ing break.

Ohh, you're a vocal "coach" and this is your first time ever hearing Rob Halford sing his Judas Priest songs from *checks notes* 1979? What's next, you got a bridge ya want to sell me?

For reactions to music, I'd make an exception for The Charismatic Voice, as she's an opera singer generally analysing how the performance came out like that.

And her reaction to Phil Collins performing "In The Air Tonight" live is priceless.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Two words.

Human. Capital.

It just seems such an apocalyptic, late stage capitalism “you are not people you are my asset” term.

Like how the US originating software I book my holiday at work terms it as “Absence”.

I remember Catbert from Dilbert comic greeting employees by saying "welcome, human resource"

 ScarletRose wrote:

 IronRose wrote:
two terms from the zoomer lexicon Gyatt and mewing turns my spine into a pretzel from cringe.

So... what you're saying is you're cringemaxxing

crinegmaxxing pretzelcel fr fr ong

 Dysartes wrote:
For reactions to music, I'd make an exception for The Charismatic Voice, as she's an opera singer generally analysing how the performance came out like that.

And her reaction to Phil Collins performing "In The Air Tonight" live is priceless.

My personal favorite was her analysis of Ozzy's "Mr. Crowley" when it suddenly pivoted and became all about the guitar work rather than the singing.

 Dysartes wrote:
For reactions to music, I'd make an exception for The Charismatic Voice, as she's an opera singer generally analysing how the performance came out like that.

And her reaction to Phil Collins performing "In The Air Tonight" live is priceless.

She's awesome, think I love her a little bit. Her metal reactions in particular are a great watch.

Sometimes I like to find reaction videos to really bizarre movies like House or Eraserhead that I didn’t get to watch with an audience just so I can have that communal WTF experience.

 insaniak wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
My worst offenders are managementspeak, and (related) overly fancy job titles.
Examples: Barrista, vocalist, executive assistant.
You're a barkeep, singer, and secretary, respectively. There's nothing wrong with any of those, they're perfectly respectable - even honourable - occupations, but being as Dutch as they come, I have an aversion to pretention.

And the only reason to fancify the job title like that is to either be a pretentious gakker or to pretend you don't think those jobs are demeaning when you clearly do. Neither is acceptable to me.

While they are admittedly often used incorrectly, none of those terms you have mentioned are actually interchangeable. It's not just 'management speak' - Singers and vocalists have different skillsets, secretaries and executive assistants have different levels of responsibility, and a barista and a bartender are completely different things.

I'll take your word for it - though I don't particularly think making fancy or specific drinks makes you not a barkeep, nor does singing in a more difficult register not a singer, nor being a secretary to a higher level of manager not a secretary. At best these are functionally subsets of the categories I described being watered down.

Or conversely, if they are fundamentally different skillsets - which again I don't think they are - I object to the cheapening of the titles by applying them to people they shouldn't for the feel-good effect or so management can get away with paying people less because the term's become so diluted the title just doesn't command the pay it should.

Neither version's acceptable to me.

“So to speak”

A hyper specific one, and one around 25 years old.

I once had a colleague who would add “so to speak” to what felt like every sentence. And it drove me completely potty.

I’m all for fancy words and mucking around with them. But that was always a case of him trying to sound more sophisticated.

Bran Dawri wrote:
I'll take your word for it - though I don't particularly think making fancy or specific drinks makes you not a barkeep, nor does singing in a more difficult register not a singer, nor being a secretary to a higher level of manager not a secretary. At best these are functionally subsets of the categories I described being watered down.

OK... but then how far do you take that? She's not a 'surgeon'... she's a doctor! He's not a 'biologist'... he's a scientist!

Having a specialist or advanced skill set is precisely why jobs are given different titles from the usual generic version.

I absolutely agree that applying them to positions that don't actually fall into those specific skillsets is a problem, because it's confusing. But that's not a reason for those titles to not exist, just a reason for people to stop inflating positions to make them sound more impressive.

Bran Dawri wrote:

I'll take your word for it - though I don't particularly think making fancy or specific drinks makes you not a barkeep, nor does singing in a more difficult register not a singer, nor being a secretary to a higher level of manager not a secretary. At best these are functionally subsets of the categories I described being watered down.

Or conversely, if they are fundamentally different skillsets - which again I don't think they are - I object to the cheapening of the titles by applying them to people they shouldn't for the feel-good effect or so management can get away with paying people less because the term's become so diluted the title just doesn't command the pay it should.

Neither version's acceptable to me.

On the one hand, I agree with you that using different titles to cheapen or improve job roles is something I dislike, I very much disagree with you that they would apply for your barista/barkeep, singer/vocalist, secretary/executive assistant roles.

Reading what you put down, one of the big ones I have an issue with is "automotive technician" instead of mechanic. Or really, any form of [job] technician: like my pest control company says "service technician" instead of exterminator, or bug hunter or whatever. To me, technician has sort of specific uses and connotations.

Or, at a friend of mine's company they use all kinds of weird, and slightly wrong terms for their jobs. At the lower end of the scale they have "Assembly technician" instead of welder, then "fabrication engineer" when really its "welder supervisor/team lead"

 insaniak wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
I'll take your word for it - though I don't particularly think making fancy or specific drinks makes you not a barkeep, nor does singing in a more difficult register not a singer, nor being a secretary to a higher level of manager not a secretary. At best these are functionally subsets of the categories I described being watered down.

OK... but then how far do you take that? She's not a 'surgeon'... she's a doctor! He's not a 'biologist'... he's a scientist!

Having a specialist or advanced skill set is precisely why jobs are given different titles from the usual generic version.

I absolutely agree that applying them to positions that don't actually fall into those specific skillsets is a problem, because it's confusing. But that's not a reason for those titles to not exist, just a reason for people to stop inflating positions to make them sound more impressive.

On Doctors and Surgeons?

It’s my genuine pleasure and privilege to have known Graham Haddock, OBE when I was proper tiny. He was part of Mum and Dad’s scouting friends and an all round great bloke.

Of course, being a surgeon, he’s referred to as ‘Mr’ rather than ‘Dr’. Which I know for a fact pisses him right off. And I can fully understand that. Whilst the origins of Dr/Mr are historical? In the modernish day, you can’t be a Surgeon without first getting your medical Doctorate* first and spending a long time getting really really good at being a proper genuine healer.

*unlike me, who just picked a username based on his favourite 40K army on Protent around maybe 1999?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Reading what you put down, one of the big ones I have an issue with is "automotive technician" instead of mechanic. Or really, any form of [job] technician: like my pest control company says "service technician" instead of exterminator, or bug hunter or whatever. To me, technician has sort of specific uses and connotations.

This, again, comes down to how the title is applied, rather than the existence of the title. A mechanic is primarily tasked with maintenance and repair. Automotive Technician is generally a more diagnostic role, which includes training in specialist equipment.

This is going to be more or less the case with any job that adds in that 'technician' title, as you say - it would generally denote more advanced or specialist skills, and is not generally actually interchangeable with the more generic role.

Having said that, if, say, an auto repair shop has all of its mechanics trained to use more advanced diagnostic equipment, then it would be well within its rights to refer to its employees as Automotive Technicians rather than Mechanics. Although in that case it would hopefully be also paying them accordingly... I suspect, for example, that there are a lot of 'Executive Assistants' out there being paid base Secretary salaries...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
I'll take your word for it - though I don't particularly think making fancy or specific drinks makes you not a barkeep, nor does singing in a more difficult register not a singer, nor being a secretary to a higher level of manager not a secretary. At best these are functionally subsets of the categories I described being watered down.

OK... but then how far do you take that? She's not a 'surgeon'... she's a doctor! He's not a 'biologist'... he's a scientist!

Having a specialist or advanced skill set is precisely why jobs are given different titles from the usual generic version.

I absolutely agree that applying them to positions that don't actually fall into those specific skillsets is a problem, because it's confusing. But that's not a reason for those titles to not exist, just a reason for people to stop inflating positions to make them sound more impressive.

On Doctors and Surgeons?

It’s my genuine pleasure and privilege to have known Graham Haddock, OBE when I was proper tiny. He was part of Mum and Dad’s scouting friends and an all round great bloke.

Of course, being a surgeon, he’s referred to as ‘Mr’ rather than ‘Dr’. Which I know for a fact pisses him right off. And I can fully understand that. Whilst the origins of Dr/Mr are historical? In the modernish day, you can’t be a Surgeon without first getting your medical Doctorate* first and spending a long time getting really really good at being a proper genuine healer.

*unlike me, who just picked a username based on his favourite 40K army on Protent around maybe 1999?

You can choose to retain Dr instead of going back to Miss/Mrs/Mr, but basically no one does. Some surgeons who trained abroad go by doctor.

But yeah, a surgeon is a medical subspecialty, it isn't a distinct entity these days. The common UK medical degree is Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) or Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Chirurgery (MBChB), and these include medicine and surgery from the get go (all UK doctors should have basic surgery skills like scrubbing up or suturing). The Dr can be dropped again once a surgeon becomes a member of the relevant Royal college (such as Royal College of Surgeons or Royal College of Opthalmologists) which means they have passed the relevant exams on their specialty training program.

As the expression goes, "five years to earn Dr, seven years to lose it again".

 insaniak wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Reading what you put down, one of the big ones I have an issue with is "automotive technician" instead of mechanic. Or really, any form of [job] technician: like my pest control company says "service technician" instead of exterminator, or bug hunter or whatever. To me, technician has sort of specific uses and connotations.

This, again, comes down to how the title is applied, rather than the existence of the title. A mechanic is primarily tasked with maintenance and repair. Automotive Technician is generally a more diagnostic role, which includes training in specialist equipment.

This is going to be more or less the case with any job that adds in that 'technician' title, as you say - it would generally denote more advanced or specialist skills, and is not generally actually interchangeable with the more generic role.

Having said that, if, say, an auto repair shop has all of its mechanics trained to use more advanced diagnostic equipment, then it would be well within its rights to refer to its employees as Automotive Technicians rather than Mechanics. Although in that case it would hopefully be also paying them accordingly... I suspect, for example, that there are a lot of 'Executive Assistants' out there being paid base Secretary salaries...

But that's the thing though, the nature of the job of a mechanic has changed to where they basically have a computer diag for them. I worked at an auto dealer, everyone of the mechanics was called a "service technician" but they were mechanics. It's a thing where, at least around here, you can't do the job unless you've been to a school for it. To me, a technician is someone who does not do heavy mechanical repairs. So in this case, the mechanic uses specialized equipment to diagnose that the ECU needs to be replaced, so he does. A technician is on the other end of where that core is sent to, they diagnose the issue and solder a resistor. A technician could be the old school TV or VCR repair shop.

Another example, while I was at the dealership, we had an issue with plumbing, so naturally they go to me in the parts department to line up a plumber. Found a company in the area and their phone person said "ok, we'll send a technician out this afternoon" . . . They sent a plumber. And, it's not a matter of "ohh they are using more advanced skills or diagnostic equipment", because basically every plumber uses the same stuff, but some companies want to try to clean up the job and call them technicians?

...because basically every plumber uses the same stuff, but some companies want to try to clean up the job and call them technicians?

It's partly marketing, to make the company and their employees sound more professional than others, partly a reflection of the fact that many trades are becoming more technical in nature, but I think it also helps to shift the undeserved impression that many people have of certain trades as being relatively unskilled and uneducated. Changing the name of the job is easier than convincing people that plumbing involves more than just unclogging toilets and replacing sink traps.