Another terminology change
What we used to call "underprivileged" kids are now going to be relabeled again, from "at risk" to "at hope."
Why don't we just take that money and buy some of them some playground equipment?
| Posted at 7:13 PM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 31, 2010 7:13 PM.
The previous post in this blog was My least favorite Olympic event.
The next post in this blog is The Comcast Oregonian?.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (10)
"as if."
Posted by Mojo | January 31, 2010 9:27 PM
They'd be "at risk" of injury on that playground equipment. Can't have that. And, besides, kids barely get any recess or PE anymore so they woudln't have time to use it.
"At hope..." yeah, that'll help.
Posted by dg | January 31, 2010 11:02 PM
Just make sure it's a "hand up" not a "hand out".
Posted by tom | February 1, 2010 5:56 AM
Kind of catchy... like changing from the term handicapped to handicapable. Im wondering how that name change worked out?
Posted by Robert | February 1, 2010 6:56 AM
Charity was once a respected word.
Posted by David E Gilmore | February 1, 2010 7:06 AM
Just make sure that equipment doesn't have "monkey bars." Now they are known as "climbing frames" to protect simian sensibilities.
Posted by Grady Foster | February 1, 2010 7:09 AM
This reminds me of a boss I once had at a Vancouver firm who required us to describe all problems as "opportunities." We were actually expected to say things like, "We're having opportunities with the copier this morning."
That said, I understand that terms used to describe stigmatized groups can themselves acquire a stigma over time, if people begin using them in intentionally hurtful ways. That's why we don't use once-respectable words like "crippled," "retarded," "moron" or "idiot" anymore, and it's one reason why many object to "handicapped" (another criticism is its connotation of "cap in hand"). But I don't believe "at risk" falls into this category. It has never, to my knowledge, been used with pejorative intent. Even if this were the case, "at hope" sounds downright smarmy.
Posted by Realist | February 1, 2010 12:48 PM
Hey, they just defined the problem out of existence.
"Are those kids at risk?"
"No, they're at hope."
"Cool, I guess they don't need any help."
Posted by Snards | February 1, 2010 1:22 PM
"At hope" just rolls off the tongue like a wad of gum, doesn't it? Besides the ludicrous euphemizing, "at" is the wrong preposition.
Posted by Gil Johnson | February 1, 2010 1:28 PM
And let's not forget "everbody's a winner, there are no losers".... wrong!!... losing is what makes you become better at what you failed at or decide to find something else to excel in (if you're smart)...
Posted by Robert | February 1, 2010 6:56 PM