Terms Which Have Disappeared

[LizzieMaine]

Denny's is the bunk. For a real, quality chain restaurant eating experience nothing could ever possibly beat the old Howard Johnson's.

 

[jamespowers]

Denny's is the bunk. For a real, quality chain restaurant eating experience nothing could ever possibly beat the old Howard Johnson's.

Yeah but now it is called Hojo and it just isn't the same. The one in Bangor doesn't even have an orange roof anymore. :doh:
You have to be careful now too. A lot of their offerings now cost over $10 for dinner.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the old days, though, they had the best fried clams in the world. And their macaroni and cheese was the only restaurant m&c that was as good as homemade. Even their placemats were educational.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Denny's is the bunk. For a real, quality chain restaurant eating experience nothing could ever possibly beat the old Howard Johnson's.

Olsen Johnson is right about Howard Johnson being right...

 

[pompier]

Olsen Johnson is right about Howard Johnson being right...

......"right down to orange roof on Howard Johnsons outhouse".........

 

[Stearmen]

Young whippersnapper!

 

[Fading Fast]

In the old days, though, they had the best fried clams in the world. And their macaroni and cheese was the only restaurant m&c that was as good as homemade. Even their placemats were educational.

Yes and let's not forget the hotdogs and french fries plate. And, and this was the best, their ice-cream. Even my dad, who rarely found a reason to open his wallet, wasn't shy about buying Howard Johnson ice-cream - mint chocolate chip and butter crunch were my favorite.

 

[Renault]

Olsen Johnson is right about Howard Johnson being right...

:eusa_clap.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

Here's a phenomenon I find interesting. Words with negative connotations are often replaced with newer words representing the same phenomena, even in the days before the concept of "politically correct".

Here are some examples:

"Imbecile", "Moron", "Idiot" were originally technical terms with described persons with decreasing levels of mental capacity. These become terms of abuse (just watch any interaction between Moe and Larry or Curly), so they were replaced by "mildly retarded", "retarded", and "profoundly retarded". These too became abusive, so today we have "developmentally challenged", and I expect that this too will be replaced by yet other terms in the hope that it will take the sting out of the reality of what the words describe.

Financial "panics" were turned into "depressions" which were renamed "recessions", all in the hope of taking the fear out of the idea.

Who else has examples?

 

[tonyb]

In the case of "the 'R' word," what was once a seemingly value-neutral term became more commonly employed as a put-down. No surprise, then, that those with intellectual disabilities would rather not hear the word at all.

 

[LizzieMaine]

By the time any word filters down to the schoolyard, its value as a descriptor has been forever corrupted.

 

[tonyb]

...

Who else has examples?

Not conjured to "take the sting out," but to aggrandize, or medicalize, or bureaucratize, or ...

The Hiring Hall became the Personnel Office became the Department of Human Resources.

Shell shock became battle fatigue became post-traumatic stress disorder.

In some cases, the neologisms truly are more accurately descriptive. In others, they're just pretentious.

 

[tonyb]

By the time any word filters down to the schoolyard, its value as a descriptor has been forever corrupted.

Too bad that the "adults" take their cues from the youngsters.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Not conjured to "take the sting out," but to aggrandize, or medicalize, or bureaucratize, or ...

The Hiring Hall became the Personnel Office became the Department of Human Resources.

Shell shock became battle fatigue became post-traumatic stress disorder.

In some cases, the neologisms truly are more accurately descriptive. In others, they're just pretentious.

I don't get the hatred for the term "human resources". Most HR departments now do far more than hire and fire people, so I don't understand why someone would still want to refer to it as "hiring hall". As for "shell shocked" v. "PTSD", when you're speaking on a clinical level, I'm not sure the former is a better descriptor either. I don't get why colloquial terms are necessarily better.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's the description of people as "resources" that rankes me, like they were a truckload of lumber or a load of coal. "Employment Office" or "Staffing Department" are good, solid descriptions of a basic process -- they handles the staffing of the business without a lot of ten-cent doubletalk. Calling employees "resources" is simply a euphemistic, depersonalized distortion of reality. If you want to make me feel like a respected and appreciated part of the company, don't call me a resource, give me a damn raise.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It's the description of people as "resources" that rankes me, like they were a truckload of lumber or a load of coal. "Employment Office" or "Staffing Department" are good, solid descriptions of a basic process -- they handles the staffing of the business without a lot of ten-cent doubletalk. Calling employees "resources" is simply a euphemistic, depersonalized distortion of reality. If you want to make me feel like a respected and appreciated part of the company, don't call me a resource, give me a damn raise.

Personally, I find being described as "staff" far, far more degrading than a "resource". I had an ex-boss who referred to us all as "his staff", and it grated on my nerves far more than him telling me I was a sorry sack of *excrement*. At any rate, with all of the non-hiring things the HR/Personnel/Staffing people do these days, I don't see the change in terminology to be necessarily born out of politcal correctness or the need for euphemisms. It's simply a logical extension of the changes required by the evolution of corporate employement requirements.

 

[tonyb]

I don't get the hatred for the term "human resources". Most HR departments now do far more than hire and fire people, so I don't understand why someone would still want to refer to it as "hiring hall". As for "shell shocked" v. "PTSD", when you're speaking on a clinical level, I'm not sure the former is a better descriptor either. I don't get why colloquial terms are necessarily better.

No hatred in the statement at all. As I said, sometimes the newfangled terms are better. "[M]ore accurately descriptive," is how I put it. Often they are. And sometimes they aren't.

 

[HudsonHawk]

No hatred in the statement at all. As I said, sometimes the newfangled terms are better. "[M]ore accurately descriptive," is how I put it. Often they are. And sometimes they aren't.

Sorry, not your post specifically. But the term has come up before and basically derided as political correctness running amok. I just don't see it in this instance.

 

[tonyb]

I'm sure I've made this observation before, but I think (in all false humility) that it bears repeating ...

"Political correctness" itself is often used as a putdown, a sort of rhetorical trump card.

If referring to people in ways they would prefer makes me politically correct, fine, I'm politically correct. Better to be politically correct than ill-mannered.

The reasonable objection to some newer terminology is to its coming across as being more for show than substance. I sometimes find myself saying things like "skill sets" when "skills" all on its lonesome would serve every bit as well, and perhaps better. I appreciate the subtle connotative distinction between the two, and I can imagine circumstances under which the former might be the better usage, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the difference rarely occurs to the speakers.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I'm sure I've made this observation before, but I think (in all false humility) that it bears repeating ...

"Political correctness" itself is often used as a putdown, a sort of rhetorical trump card.

If referring to people in ways they would prefer makes me politically correct, fine, I'm politically correct. Better to be politically correct than ill-mannered.

The reasonable objection to some newer terminology is to its coming across as being more for show than substance. I sometimes find myself saying things like "skill sets" when "skills" all on its lonesome would serve every bit as well, and perhaps better. I appreciate the subtle connotative distinction between the two, and I can imagine circumstances under which the former might be the better usage, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the difference rarely occurs to the speakers.

I agree that political correctness isn't necessarily a bad thing. If being more politically correct means my remarks are less offensive, then what's wrong with that? We should all strive to be more so. I also agree that many terms, which are not really PC words, but rather "buzzwords", are often annoying, especially when overused and/or used out of the proper context. And since we're putting it all out there, I really dislike the transitive use of verbs and nouns, making one out of the other. Though where I come from, "cowboy" is a perfectly acceptable verb.