Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[Lat-Literal]

The word 'lawmaker' meaning the elected politicians in various countries seems to be getting commoner. Is it is just a recent journalistic shorthand brought over from the USA? Or did I never notice it before?

[Of course, I know that national legislators are technically lawmakers, but when did the word become commonly used over here e.g. by the BBC?]

In the 1990s, I would certainly often have the word "legal" in my drafts at work replaced by the word "lawful". Consequently I adapted - and I never went back. At the very least, there is a difference in nuance there which is possibly brought out best with "illegal" and "unlawful". The first is screaming sirens. The second says gently "this is not permitted".

(I suppose I still do use "illegal" when being emphatically outraged - "you are discriminating against the lawfully obese but have nothing whatsoever to say on illegal drug takers")

[Pabmusic]

The word 'lawmaker' meaning the elected politicians in various countries seems to be getting commoner. Is it is just a recent journalistic shorthand brought over from the USA? Or did I never notice it before?

[Of course, I know that national legislators are technically lawmakers, but when did the word become commonly used over here e.g. by the BBC?]

There is at least a point in its use in the USA, because of their quite clear separation of powers. Congress and the Senate are the legislative branch, quite literally the law-making branch. It's so different in the UK, where Parliament contains members of the Executive and (in the Lords) the Church, who are also members of the Legislative and thus lawmakers. Its such a diffence that 'lawmakers' means nothing useful in Britain.

[Serial_Apologist]

Push back.

When did this (to me) childish phrase come into vogue?

Wasn't "opposition" good enough??

[Richard Tarleton]

(topically) Safe Space

[jean]

The idea, or just the name?

[Richard Tarleton]

The idea - but the name is very annoying also. Good piece in today's Times by Philip Collins, on how Generation Snowflake needs to learn to argue. The panel discussion on Newsnight the other night was so irritating that I had to no-platform it from the safe space that is my sitting room.

[Serial_Apologist]

The idea - but the name is very annoying also. Good piece in today's Times by Philip Collins, on how Generation Snowflake needs to learn to argue. The panel discussion on Newsnight the other night was so irritating that I had to no-platform it from the safe space that is my sitting room.

Listening to this morning's interviewers interrupting every second sentance of their interviewees, I was reminded of Humphrys being asked by Tony Benn what the purpose of the interruption was, and replying that this was to stop said interviewee avoiding or shilly-shallying around giving an answer. I for one would like to hear what the politician, celebrity, bureaucrat or whoever is saying in reply, so that I can find out what the nation is being spoonfed by its informers, whether or not I agree with it - otherwise my attention is diverted into tightening up in anticipation of the reply being interrupted or spoken over, so I never get to hear; and I'm willing to bet one of the reasons why young people are finding it difficult to conduct an argument is that such arguments being conducted on air between people posing as experts in such a way that their interruptions circumvent protocols with appeals to avoidance of truths or, especially, lack of time, is hardly conducive for instilling either the discipline or the ethos necessary for reaching any kind of judgement as to which side is offering a reliable prospectus on which to make a judgement.

[ahinton]

Listening to this morning's interviewers interrupting every second sentance of their interviewees, I was reminded of Humphrys being asked by Tony Benn what the purpose of the interruption was, and replying that this was to stop said interviewee avoiding or shilly-shallying around giving an answer. I for one would like to hear what the politician, celebrity, bureaucrat or whoever is saying in reply, so that I can find out what the nation is being spoonfed by its informers, whether or not I agree with it - otherwise my attention is diverted into tightening up in anticipation of the reply being interrupted or spoken over, so I never get to hear; and I'm willing to bet one of the reasons why young people are finding it difficult to conduct an argument is that such arguments being conducted on air between people posing as experts in such a way that their interruptions circumvent protocols with appeals to avoidance of truths or, especially, lack of time, is hardly conducive for instilling either the discipline or the ethos necessary for reaching any kind of judgement as to which side is offering a reliable prospectus on which to make a judgement.

Good points indeed. The problem with so many of these interviews, however, is not just the interruption habit on the part of the interviewer but the pre-scripted "answers" on the part of the interviewee when, for example, it is so irritatingly obvious that, when a question that primarily seeks a "yes" or "no" answer but gets anything else that will to avoid this, it is clear that the interviewee has no intention of answering the question.

[Lat-Literal]

"Even those Cabinet ministers who are furious with Hammond about his behaviour over Brexit are glad that the Treasury is acting as a restraining influence on how much money is going to be pumped into Northern Ireland to gain the Ulstermen’s (sic) support. There is a growing worry among ministers that the public will loathe the idea of taxpayers’ money being used to keep them in office. “‘The optics are terrible,” one member of the Government admits." (The Sun, 17 June 2017)

The optics?

What is this dreadful phrase that I first had the misfortune to hear on "The Daily Politics" today from three different contributors?

The technical side remains tough but the optics are slightly better.

Not that it is a breakthrough.

(Should have gone to Specsavers?)

[MrGongGong]

The optics?

Terrible .... no Talisker

[ahinton]

Terrible .... no Talisker

Worse still, no single malt at all!

[french frank]

The optics?

What is this dreadful phrase that I first had the misfortune to hear on "The Daily Politics" today from three different contributors?

'North American: (typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.
"the issue itself is secondary to the optics of the Democrats opposing this administration in a high-profile way" '

The more worrying thing about the import of handy US words and phrases is that with that may come the American way of perceiving.

[teamsaint]

'North American: (typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.
"the issue itself is secondary to the optics of the Democrats opposing this administration in a high-profile way" '

The more worrying thing about the import of handy US words and phrases is that with that may come the American way of perceiving.

What do you understand that to be ?

[Lat-Literal]

'North American: (typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.
"the issue itself is secondary to the optics of the Democrats opposing this administration in a high-profile way" '

The more worrying thing about the import of handy US words and phrases is that with that may come the American way of perceiving.

I'm not surprised.

Had you heard of it before?

I hadn't heard of it before today.

[/B]

What do you understand that to be ?

In this context, "the American way of perceiving" may be based on what the public is mainly given, fake or not.

[french frank]

[/B]

What do you understand that to be ?

Perceiving what? An American perspective on whatever it happens to be.