Comment

Comment on Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized

You feel free to use expressions and terms as “rub me the wrong way”, “buzzwords”, and “clickbait”. In those cases you are okay with the listener/reader interpreting the implicit meaning over their explicit wording. Why is “forever chemicals” different? Specially in an informal communication setting.

source

Sort:hotnew top

TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Those are purely linguistic constructions. I take issue with these nicknames for real substances, which already have shortened names that are easy to pronounce (PFAs). This is giving something that’s already established, a new nickname, with the addition of your own emotional manipulation. I would say one of the reasons this is getting so much attention is because of their clever wording. I can’t say whether this is an important issue, because I don’t have any experience in this area.

I’ll provide an example. So currently “Russia” is the normal term for that country west from Alaska. But you could also say “Communist Russia”, “Red Menace”, “Mother Russia”, and apparently some people call it “Mordor” lol. Even for informal communications you should avoid these sort of alternate terms. It’s unprofessional. If you have a strong argument or message it will stand on its own.

source
- Francisco@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Thanks for your answers and perspective, trully. Even if none of us have changed their opinion.
  
  I see adjectivation and categorization as parts of reasoning. I think you used a red herring in order to have a strong opinion about it. With the same cheakyness, I’ll quote yourself
  
  I can’t say whether this is an important issue, because I don’t have any experience in this area.
  
  I take issue
  
  source
  - TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    “this” refers to the chemicals not the language
    
    source